This is an update to the first blog post, which gave an overview of the Trump Trade War.

President Trump’s tweets on April 8th and 10th and most importantly President Xi’s April 10th speech did a lot to calm the nerves of investors in the US and China that no trade war was imminent. President Xi in his April 10, 2018 speech at the BOAN Conference in Hainan pledged to open China further to imports and to investment and to protect the intellectual property rights (“IPR”) of foreign companies.

Now in response to the Section 301 case, we can expect a round of intense negotiations between the US and China until November 18, 2018 to see if President Xi’s promises can be put into writing and the threats of a trade war averted. Although President Xi pledged to move the reform process expeditiously, the Section 301 case has external deadlines. After the May 15th hearing and final comments on May 22nd, there are still 180 days, 6 months, or until November 18, 2018 before the US takes action under Section 301.

Section 301 are usually settled with trade agreements so the question is what will China agree to and what will be in the Agreement.

Most importantly, the hope is that this Section 301 action can also help solve the Steel and Aluminum crisis in the Section 232 case as part of these negotiations so that China will lift its $3 billion in retaliation on US imports, which has already been put in place. That is a hope of many US farmers.

My next update will describe the exclusion process in detail in the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases, the Section 201 Solar case and the procedures going forward in the Section 301 IP China case.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

If anyone wants to unsubscribe to the newsletter, please let me know and I will remove them from the list.

PRESIDENT XI’S SPEECH AND PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TWEETS HELP CALM THE TRADE WATERS AND HOPEFULLY AVERT A TRADE WAR

As the potential for a US China full blown trade war appeared to escalate last week with increasing rhetoric from both sides, cooler heads appeared to prevail as both sides stepped back from the brink.

On April 8, 2018, over the weekend and before the President Xi April 10th speech, President Trump appeared to step back and tone down his rhetoric with regards to China. Trump specifically tweeted:

“4/8/18, 5:12 AM

President Xi and I will always be friends, no matter what happens with our dispute on trade. China will take down its Trade Barriers because it is the right thing to do. Taxes will become Reciprocal & a deal will be made on Intellectual Property. Great future for both countries!”

Very smartly, President Trump decided not to attack China or the Chinese people and that did a lot to calm the waters and provoke a positive reaction from China. As President Xi stated in his April 10th speech, “With the future in mind, we need to treat each other with respect and as equals.”

After President Xi’s speech, President Trump tweeted on April 10th:

“4/10/18, 10:51 AM

Very thankful for President Xi of China’s kind words on tariffs and automobile barriers…also, his enlightenment on intellectual property and technology transfers. We will make great progress together!”

In effect, all the US anti-trade rhetoric had created a crisis atmosphere and the question is how China would react. President Xi’s speech helped the US walk back the rhetoric in preparation for negotiations. Although Trump maybe a good negotiator, the other side still has to come to the table.

Thus, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech on April 10th speech at the Boao forum in Hainan, China was extremely important to clear the rhetoric away in preparation for negotiations. The Boao forum is an annual forum of Asian government and business leaders in Hainan. In that speech, although not referring to Trump trade action by name, President Xi responded by pledging to open China more to foreign investment and imports and to substantially increase protection for intellectual property held by foreign companies.

President Xi’ made clear in the speech his support for global development cooperation and peace. He stated that only peaceful development and cooperation can bring a win-win situation. He also stated that China has no choice but to pursue development and connectivity, and that reform and innovation are keys to human development. President Xi emphasized that countries have to treat each other with respect and as equals.

President Xi described China as a socialist country with Chinese characteristics, not a Communist country. President Xi stated that China will not threaten anyone else or the international system. It is determined to build World Peace and global prosperity.

President Xi also stated that China is committed to its strategy of opening up China, and China will stay open and will open up even further. President Xi stated that greater openness will move economic globalization further so as to benefit people.

President Xi also pledged to take concrete action and measures to significantly broaden market access in the financial area, insurance, and other areas. Xi specifically mentioned easing equity restrictions in the automobiles area.

President Xi pledged stronger IP protection and to protect IPR of foreign companies and to expand imports. He also stated that China does not seek a trade surplus but a balance of payments and that China will significantly lower imports tariffs for autos and other products. Xi specifically stated:

“With regard to all those major initiatives I have just announced, we have every intention to translate them into reality sooner rather than later. We want the outcomes of our opening up efforts to deliver benefits as soon as possible to all enterprises and people in China and around the world.”

President Xi also stated:

“Openness versus isolation and progress versus retrogression, humanity has a major choice to make. In a world aspiring for peace and development, the Cold War mentality and zero‐sum mentality look even more out of place.”

Xi called for “a new approach to state‐to‐state relations, featuring dialogue rather than confrontation and partnership instead of alliance.”

Xi further stated that China will create “a more attractive investment environment. Investment is like air and only fresh air attracts more investment from the outside.”

With regards to intellectual property, President Xi stated:

“Stronger IPR protection is the requirement of foreign enterprises, and even more so of Chinese enterprises. We encourage normal technological exchanges and cooperation between Chinese and foreign enterprises, and protect the lawful IPR owned by foreign enterprises in China.”

The real question now will be implementation, and China will no longer have the luxury of taking as much time as it wants to make these reforms because the Section 301 clock is ticking. After the May 22nd final comments at USTR, pursuant to the Section 301 statute, the Trump Administration has another 180 days or six months or until November 18, 2018 before it takes action and imposes tariffs on the $50 billion in imports.

Most Section 301 cases end up with a negotiated settlement so we should expect the same end game in this case with intense negotiations by both sides.

This is the first of two blog posts. The first blog post gives an overview of the Trump Trade War/Crisis with the World and specifically with China. The second blog post will get into the details and the complexities of the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases, the Section 301 China Intellectual Property (“IP”) case and the Section 201 Solar Cells case. But this trade war is getting bigger and bigger.

Having just returned from a month in Europe on March 26th, I wanted to put together another blog post, but every day there has been another significant trade development. While in Europe, I was thinking that my next blog post would be entitled “Trump’s World Trade War”. Had the Trump Administration taken a World Trade War too lightly?

But after I returned from Europe, the narrative changed as country after country negotiated country exemptions out of the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariffs.

But then on April 1st the Chinese government issued a $3 billion retaliation list aimed at US imports in response to the Section 232 tariffs, much of it agricultural products. On April 3rd. the Trump Administration announced $50 billion in potential tariffs on Chinese imports in the Section 301 case. See attached Presidential Proclamation and 301 Fed Reg Notice with US retaliation list, FED REG NOTICE 301 PLUS PROPOSED US RETALIATION LISTFED REG PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION 301 CHINA The Chinese government immediately reacted with its own attached list of $50 billion in tariffs on US imports into China. China-301-Retaliation-List-Chinese-and-English. Both lists will be described in more detail in my second blog post. Both lists cover many, many different products from agricultural products to machinery, automobiles and airplanes.

On April 5th, in response to China’s $50 billion in retaliation, President Trump proposed and USTR Lighthizer agreed on another $100 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports. $150 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports completely offsets the $130 billion in US exports to China. The US and China are now involved in a game of trade war chicken. Who will blink first?

So the new title of the newsletter below is “Trump’s World Trade War?? Maybe Not. Now Definitely Yes” But as Shakespeare stated in Hamlet, maybe there is a method to Trump’s madness. Trump appeared to be ready to start a World Trade War at the beginning of March, but at the end of March, Trump appeared much more interested in using the threat of high tariffs to get a better trade deal to open up foreign markets. Tariffs give Trump leverage in trade deals.

But then the trade war started to escalate with China as both sides created retaliation lists. The only shining light in this trade conflict is that the $150 billion tariffs will not take place right away. There will be a hearing in May to determine which imports to target and then the actual decision implementing the US tariffs will be months away.

The Chinese government will also not implement the $50 billion in threatened tariffs until it sees what the Trump Administration does. Meanwhile there will be intense negotiations between the US and Chinese governments.

Two readers have criticized me for not focusing enough in past blog posts on the trade deficits with China and high tariffs China puts on US exports. US exports in 2017 were $2.4 trillion, $1.6 trillion in goods and the impact of a trade war on US companies and jobs is becoming very clear. With regards to China, the United States exported $130.369 billion to China in 2017, imported $505.597 billion in 2017 leaving a trade deficit of $375.227 billion. Concentrating only on trade deficits, however, ignores the very large amounts exported by the United States to the World and China.

But the real question is strategy. Trump’s strategy apparently is to use the threat of high tariffs on imports from China and other countries to extract better trade deals which lower duties on and barriers to US exports. As indicated below, USTR Lighthizer’s strategy, in part, is based on the belief that China has not kept its promises. The Chinese government negotiates, but does not live up to its deal so only a true threat of big trade retaliation will force China to change its practices when it comes to intellectual property and mercantilism. if the strategy works, more power to President Trump.

But, sovereign countries may not react the same way as private businesses. Sovereign countries are very aware of face and whether the US Government respects the other country. If President Trump pushes too hard, he risks so angering the other country, that no trade deal can be negotiated. See the movie the Gathering Storm when Winston Churchill asked his British constituents on a subway train whether his government should negotiate a peace treaty with Hitler. The answer was never!!

More importantly, because of the real negative economic impact Trump’s trade policy has already had on farm states, which is a core constituency and part of Donald Trump s base, Trump should know that he truly has bet the House/his Presidency on his trade deals. If his trade strategy does not work, the economic damage his policy will do on his constituency will badly damage Republicans in the mid-terms and he probably will be a one term President. Going into the midterms, Republican Senator Grassley from Iowa, which has been hit hard by Trump’s trade policy, has stated that Trump will own any harm caused by his trade strategy and any retaliation caused by it. Senator Grassley should know because Iowa is changing from a state that was firmly in the Republican camp and pro-Trump to a now battleground state.

The objective of this blog has been to warn about the perils of protectionism. I do not want to exaggerate the situation. If Trump’s strategy works and he gets better trade deals, he will be in a very good situation. But if the trade deals go south, especially with China, Trump’s core constituents will be badly hurt in a trade war by retaliation and there will be election hell to pay. Trade is becoming Trump’s Obamacare lightening rod.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

If anyone wants to unsubscribe to the newsletter, please let me know and I will remove them from the list.

TRUMP’S WORLD TRADE WAR?? MAYBE NOT. NOW DEFINITELY YES.

On February 27th, USTR Robert Lighthizer on the Laura Ingraham show on Fox News stated that it was ridiculous to think that the United States was going to get into a trade war with China. On April 6th, in light of Trump’s decision to impose another $100 billion in tariffs on China’s imports in response to China’s threatened $50 billion on US exports, Lighthizer’s statement is simply ridiculous. The United States has a full-blown trade war with China. Lighthizer’s original statement, however, indicates that he may have underestimated the response of other countries to his trade demands.

At the start of March, it certainly appeared that the Trump Administration had started a trade war not only with China, but with the entire world. In effect, the United States apparently had created a World Trade War. With tough trade NAFTA negotiations with Mexico and Canada, Europe issuing its own retaliation list in response to the Section 232 Aluminum and Steel Tariffs along with very tough tariffs for China and long retaliation lists aimed at US exports, it certainly looked like a World Trade War.

As I visited many cities in Germany, including Berlin, my fear was that the Trump Administration, like Germany, was taking a trade “war” too lightly. On March 2, 2017, President Trump tweeted:

“When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!”

President Trump apparently was referring to a $100 billion bilateral trade deﬁcit with a certain country, but it was not clear which one. In 2017, the U.S. ran a global goods deﬁcit of $810 billion. The largest bilateral trade deﬁcit was $375 billion with China. But in 2017 total US exports were $2.4 trillion with $1.6 trillion being goods. Agricultural products amounted to only $137 billion, the rest were manufactured goods.

This tweet followed the announcement to impose broad tariffs of 25% on steel imports, and 10% on aluminum imports pursuant to the Section 232 cases. On March 16th, the EC issued its own attached retaliation list, TWO EU RETALIATION LISTS.

In response, on March 2, 2018, the Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”) in an article entitled, “Trade Wars Are Good, Trump Tweets,” immediately criticized Trump’s trade action along with many economists and others, stating:

That is what most economists would call a classic “trade war,” which Investopedia deﬁnes as “a negative side eﬀect of protectionism that occurs when Country A raises tariﬀs on Country B’s imports in retaliation for Country B raising tariﬀs on Country A’s imports.”

Most economists and policy makers consider trade wars unpredictable, destabilizing and damaging, the most notorious example being the cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation intensiﬁed by the 1930 American Smoot-Hawley law that aggravated the Great Depression.

At a March 21st hearing in the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, USTR Lighthizer gave a measured step by step argument on the Section 232 Tariffs and the Section 301 China IP Case against China to explain Trump’s trade strategy. To see the two hour plus hearing before Ways and Means, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxqNWw5PObk.

On March 22nd, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appeared before the House Ways and Means Committee to defend the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum tariffs. Many Representatives expressed substantial concern about the retaliation against different US exports products, such as agricultural products, and the impact on downstream steel users. To see this long hearing with Wilbur Ross, click on the following link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vylt-NTsT8I.

Upon my return from Europe, on March 26th, the situation appeared to change with a number of countries, including Canada, Mexico, South Korea, the EC, Argentina and Brazil, negotiating final or temporary trade agreements with the US in the Section 232 cases to get country wide exemptions. See attached Section 232 Fed Reg notice outling exemptions for countries and for products, which can be filed by US end user companies. EXCLUSION FED REG STEEL AND ALUMINUM. The exemptions for Canada and Mexico are only good depending upon the results of the NAFTA negotiations. The EC, Brazil and Argentina exemptions are only good until early May when hopefully final agreements will be negotiated. This was apparently part of USTR Lighthizer’s strategy before tackling China. See below.

With regards to South Korea, in the final agreement, in exchange for a country wide exemption from the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum tariffs, it agreed to limit its steel exports to 70% of the average steel exports over the last three years and also open up its own market slightly to more auto imports from the US. Since South Korea is the third largest steel exporter to the US, that reduction does mean that there will be less steel in the US market.

But then the trade war started to escalate again, especially with China. On April 1st, China announced it was levying tariffs on 128 different US imports into China totaling $3 billion in response to the Section 232 tariffs on Steel and Aluminum. China also took its case to the WTO and stated that since there are no negotiations, it can levy those tariffs now. See the attached $3 billion Chinese retaliation list, SECTION 232 CHINA LIST RETALIATION TARGETS, which has already been imposed on US imports into China.

On April 5th, in response to the Chinese $50 billlion retaliation list, President Trump asked the USTR to add another $100 billion on the $50 billion already proposed against China. The April 5th exchange between the President and USTR Lighthizer are attached. TRUMP STATEMENT 100 BILLION LIGHTHIZER RESPONSE. On April 6th, China said it would respond, but $150 billion is more than total US exports to China of $130 billion.

US proposes, China retaliates, the US raises the anti. China responds. This is a true trade war and exactly what the Wall Street Journal and others have predicted.

The only good point is that neither list has been implemented yet and as described below in more detail, the actual implementation of the tariffs is probably months away.

TRUMP HAS BET THE HOUSE/HIS PRESIDENCY ON BETTER TRADE DEALS

In his book, the Art of the Deal, Donald Trump states at page 222:

“USE YOUR LEVERAGE

The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead. The best thing you can do is deal from strength, and leverage is the biggest strength you can have. Leverage is having something the other guy wants. Or better yet, needs. Or best of all, simply can’t do without.”

Trump has made it clear that he wants tariffs. Through the Section 232 process and the Section 301 IP Case against China, Trump got his tariffs and his leverage. Now the question is what is Trump’s trade strategy.

On March 10th, in a Pennsylvania speech after the announcement of the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, President Trump stated with regards to trade:

European Union. . . They kill us on trade… They have trade barriers. We can’t even sell our farming goods. . . . Then they say we want those tariffs [aluminum and steel] taken off. We are going to tax Mercedes Benz, BMW. . . .You want money to come into our country. . . . We are like $100 billion down with the European Union. We had stupid politicians doing stupid things. Think of $100 billion. I’ve already had $71 billion Mexico, $130 billion. That is a real number. The deal was bad the day they made it. Mexico charges a 16% tax nobody talks about. I talk about it. We are either going to renegotiate NAFTA – and I say we won’t put the tariffs on Mexico and Canada. Canada is brutal. We have a deficit with Canada. They send in timber, steel a lot of things. Our farmers in Wisconsin are not treated well when we want to send things to them.

I don’t blame them. Why should I blame them? They outsmarted our politicians for decades. I don’t mean Obama. I mean all of them since Bush the first. That includes a lot of territory. Ronald Regan. . . Not great on trade.

We used to be a nation of tariffs. Countries had to pay for the privilege of taking our product, our jobs. They had to pay. They want to sell their products. They had to pay. Today in China. They sell a car to the US they pay 2.5%. We sell a car in China, which is almost impossible to do, it is probably . … 25%. That is why we have a trade deficit with China. It is not good. We are changing it. It takes a while. . .

We have a trade deficit with countries of the world…of almost $800 billion. Who makes these deals? . . . It is more than Obama. Plenty of Presidents allow that to happen. We are going to get a lot of things straightened out. NAFTA is under work right now.

Now they are going to be very good. . .If you make a decent deal for the American people, we will have no problem with tariffs. I said .. something to the European Union. Look you are killing us. We are losing $100 billion a year…You are not accepting our product. I want to help the farmers . . .

You hear the European Union. It sounds innocent. It is not innocent. They are very tough and smart. They sell stuff into us and we … charge them practically nothing. We sell things into them, you can’t get through the barriers. They have artificial barriers. It is not monetary, environmental. They come up with things you would not believe. We can’t get our product in there. I said open up your barriers. Get rid of your tariffs and we will do this. . . We have a lot of work to do.

That is the Trump strategy. Raise tariffs and if necessary raise tariffs again and then use those tariffs as leverage to get a better trade deal. But what if the other country does not cooperate and puts out its own retaliation list? That is the risk of Trump’s trade policy; the economic situation in Trump country, especially in the agriculture states, turns down.

Meanwhile, on April 5th the Commerce Department reported that in February 2018, the US trade deficit rose to $57.6 billion, 9½%, to its highest level in almost 10 years, although the trade deficit with China narrowed sharply falling 18.6% to $29.3 billion. In February US exports of goods increased 2.3% to $137.2 billion, but goods imports jumped 1.6% to $214.2 billion.

But in the agriculture states, a hard rain is going to fall and is falling. Just from the initial attached $3 billion-dollar list, which has gone into effect, agriculture has been the top target. SECTION 232 CHINA LIST RETALIATION TARGETS. Agriculture experts expect that the soybeans, sorghum, beef, pork, wheat, corn and cotton are all on the target lists for both cases. For most of these farm products, US farmers export billions to China.

On April 5, 2018, in an article entitled “What a Trade Fight Would Mean For Trump Country”, the Washington Examiner looked at the downside of the Trump trade war and attacks on other countries. Farmers are getting smashed and they are a core Trump constituency. As the Washington Examiner states:

President Trump’s hardball tactics to extract trade concessions from China could crush communities that fuel his political support, with Republicans in Congress paying the price in November.

A Brookings Institution analysis revealed that a U.S.-China trade war would impact agriculture and manufacturing and could disproportionately cost working class jobs in counties Trump carried in the 2016 election. Of the 2,783 counties affected, the president won 2,279; compared to just 449 that went for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Nearly 1.1 million jobs in Trump country are tied to trade with China, according to the Brookings study. Voters there, supportive of the president’s agenda and long eager for the U.S. to combat Beijing’s unfair trade practices, might give the administration latitude to negotiate better terms.

But if the confrontation escalates and the economy suffers, congressional Republicans could shoulder the blame. Already facing a challenging re-election environment, they count a growing economy among their few advantages. They have minimal time to weather any storm and, unlike Trump, can’t rely on the loyalty of the GOP base.

“This could have a huge, negative impact in the midterms — and beyond — if the trade tit for tat continues,” Dave Carney, a veteran Republican strategist based in New Hampshire, said. Although, he added: “If the president gets concessions and jobs continue to grow and most importantly voters give him credit for that victory, then things will improve for his party.”

The Brookings Institution, a centrist think tank in Washington, examined industries and jobs that would be affected by a trade war with China based on the threats being lobbed back and forth since Trump began moving in March to crack down on Beijing. . . .

Nothing concrete has actually happened, yet. Wall Street, and top executives at corporations who stand to lose business, are operating under the assumption that a deal will be reached before the saber-rattling evolves into an extended showdown. . . .

The agriculture industry, the economic backbone of many rural communities in the heartland, is less sanguine and isn’t waiting for negotiations between Washington and Beijing to falter to sound the alarm. In a press release, the American Soybean Association said “Chinese Retaliation is No Longer a ‘What If’ for Soybean Farmers.”

Soybean farmers export 60 percent of their crop, about $14 billion worth annually, to China. ASA Vice President Davie Stephens, a soybean farmer in Clinton, Ky., said he awoke Wednesday morning to a 30-40 cent per bushel drop in the price of soybeans, which appeared related to the increased specter of a trade war.

“Farmers are worried,” Stephens said in a telephone conversation. “My local community would feel the impact.”

Trump at times has been bellicose in his rhetoric, vowing that he would do whatever is necessary to force China to treat U.S. imports fairly. “When you’re already $500 Billion DOWN, you can’t lose,” he tweeted. But the administration in general sought to calm nerves, with top officials insisting that Trump is intent on avoiding a major spat with Beijing.

“You know, there are carrots and sticks in life, but he is ultimately a free trader. He’s said that to me, he’s said it publicly. So he wants to solve this with the least amount of pain,” Larry Kudlow, the president’s chief economic adviser and an ardent free trader, told reporters.

Republicans worried about the midterm elections don’t sound reassured. Hoping to run on a $1.3 trillion tax overhaul that accelerated economic growth in the first quarter of the year and delivered massive tax cuts, Republicans have seen their economic message usurped by Trump’s proposed tariffs.

Worse, Republicans fear that an unintended trade war might erase the economic gains they’re depending on to buttress the party against political headwinds that threaten to wipe out their majorities in the House and Senate. As Brookings discovered, more than 2.1 million jobs could be adversely affected by a confrontation with China, including almost 1 million in the 449 Clinton counties.

That’s because China’s potential retaliatory targets include white-collar industries such as pharmaceuticals and aerospace. House Republicans are defending 23 districts won by Clinton 17 months ago, and trade war aftershocks that rumble through Clinton counties could add to GOP woes in the affected red seats.

Working-class voters might not fret too much about stock market volatility attributed to Trump’s trade policies. But it could push the white collar set right into the arms of the Democrats, especially in educated, upscale suburbs that typically vote Republican but are drifting, because of dissatisfaction with the president’s polarizing leadership.

“If I were a Democrat, what I would be running up Trump’s ass is how these shenanigans are DESTROYING values in 401ks and college savings plans,” a GOP strategist said. “Most people don’t know a cashew farmer or whiskey distiller but do worry about their own retirement account and paying for college.”

The problem for President Trump is that according to an April 5th article by Newsmax, as reported by Morning Consult, Trump’s approval rating across the 50 states has fallen to 41%. The Rasmussen Poll shows Trump rising to 51%, but when polling is done at a state level, it is not that pretty. In contrast to West Virginia, which shows a huge bump for Trump, Iowa dropped by 9 points, Idaho dropped by 6 points, Montana by 5 points and Oklahoma by 5 points. These states have several things in common. First, they are strong Republican red states and second they are agriculture states. Iowa has been a very reliable Republican state, but is now considered a battleground state.

In addition, on February 8, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that in contrast to the rest of the economy, farm Incomes are falling, “Farm incomes are forecast to decline 7% to $60 billion in 2018.”

To win the midterms, these states have to stay in the Republican column. For Trump to win the Presidency in 2020, he has to carry the farm belt. If he loses the farm states, he loses the Presidency.

Congress has been reluctant to do anything beyond warn the Trump administration that it risks a full-blown trade war, although behind the scenes some lawmakers, especially Republicans, want the government to ﬁnd a quick solution to the tension.

“Every town hall I go to, trade or tariﬀs is one of the big questions. That’s what’s on their mind,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) . . . . “They are starting to question the president and where we’re going with this,” she said, adding that she was going to express her concerns directly to Mr. Trump on Wednesday. “I need for him to understand that we’re hurting in the Midwest and this is not helping.”

Iowa is among the largest soybean- producing states, and the state’s other senator, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, noted on Wednesday that he had cautioned Mr. Trump his administration would own any harmcaused by Chinese retaliation.

Emphasis added.

THE REAL PROBLEM OF A TRADE WAR WITH CHINA—THE AVERAGE AMERICAN SUPPORTS TRUMP ON THIS ACTION—CHINA STARTED IT

On the day, China announced its $50 billion retaliation list, much of which was aimed at constituents of Donald Trump, including US farmers in rural states, Rasmussen reported that Donald Trump’s popularity for the first time in its daily polling had shot to 51%.

The People’s Daily recently asked me to comment on the Section 232 and 301 trade actions against China. As I stated in my comments, the majority of Americans, 70% in recent polls, believe that it is time to stand up to China’s trade practices. Many Americans see Chinese trade practices as being unfair. So the perception of trade disputes with China is very different than the perception of trade disputes with other countries, such as the EC, Mexico and Canada. In fact, after the Chinese Government proposed $50 billion in tariffs in response to the US tariffs and Trump countered with another $100 billion in proposed tariffs, many Americans indicated strong support for President Trump.

The Chinese press indicates that many Chinese are very angry at the US and Trump, but the US Press indicates that many Americans believe that China has taken too much advantage of the US China trade relationship and strongly support President Trump. With both the Chinese and US populations riled up, this makes it much more difficult for the Governments to step back and negotiate a settlement.

In the March 22nd Editorial, “Trump’s China Tariﬀs”, the Wall Street Journal, in effect, stated that China started the trade war. Although the Wall Street Journal states that Trump’s trade policy with China is the wrong economic strategy to get it to change, the WSJ also states:

“No one should be surprised by the $60 billion in border taxes on China, given that Mr. Trump campaigned on worse. He is also responding to the genuine problem of Chinese mercantilism. China’s government steals the intellectual property of U.S. companies or forces them to turn it over, and Beijing uses regulation to discriminate against foreign ﬁrms.

This might have been tolerable when China was a smaller economy trying to reform, and the U.S. made a reasonable bet in 2001 when it let China enter the World Trade Organization. The gamble was that China would continue to reform, adapt to global trade norms, and eventually become a genuine market economy.

That hope showed early promise but has become forlorn as President Xi Jinping has pushed “national champions” like Huawei and Tencent. Facebook still can’t operate in China, and Tesla is punished with a 25% tariﬀ on imported electric cars. The U.S. tariﬀ on cars from China is 2.5%. China’s predatory behavior has eroded political support in the West for the very free-trade rules that have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty.”

Emphasis added.

But the Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”) in the same editorial warned:

“The President’s trade hawks, led by White House aide Peter Navarro, want to punish China more than they want to change its behavior. Mr. Navarro really does believe that China today is the equivalent of Germany a century ago. Mr. Trump said Thursday that this tariﬀ action would be “the ﬁrst of many.” This is the mentality that could lead to a trade war and economic damage for everyone. . . .”

When it comes to free trade and economics, the Wall Street Journal is the voice of reason, which many free trade Republicans in Congress listen to.

On April 6, 2018, after Trump’s announcement of another $100 billion in tariffs, the WSJ in an article entitled “The Architect of Trump’s Tough-on-China Policy” described in detail USTR Lighthizer’s strategy with regards to China:

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump’s tough policy on China trade took shape in a White House meeting last August—and at the center was an often-overlooked man.

Decades of quiet negotiations had gotten nowhere, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer told senior White House advisers and cabinet oﬃcials gathered in the Roosevelt Room.

“China is tap, tap, tapping us along,” he said, meaning it regularly promised policy changes but didn’t deliver. He punctuated his talk with charts showing how the trade deﬁcit with Beijing had widened. . . .

U.S. Ambassador to China Terry Branstad, linked by videophone, asked for a chance to conduct another round of talks based on a rapport he was developing with the Chinese. He found little support. It was time to act, starting with a formal investigation of China for unfair trade practices, Mr. Lighthizer argued.

A few days later, Mr. Trump announced an investigation of alleged Chinese violations of U.S. intellectual-property rights—headed by Mr. Lighthizer. It marked the start of the most dramatic and high-risk eﬀort in decades to force the world’s second largest economy to change its behavior, which culminated this week in an order threatening to slap tariﬀs on $50 billion of Chinese imports, a move that also had Mr. Lighthizer’s imprint on it.

After China threatened tariﬀs on an equal amount of imports from the U.S., Mr. Trump on Thursday called that “unfair retaliation” and said he might put tariﬀs on a further $100 billion of Chinese imports, tripling the amount subject to them. A Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesman said on Friday Beijing ”is fully prepared to hit back forcefully and without hesitation.”

Mr. Lighthizer’s role became clear to the Chinese when the Trump economic team landed in Beijing in November for a round of discussions. Mr. Trump made sure the U.S. trade representative met with top Chinese leaders while some others waited outside.

In a session with President Xi Jinping, Mr. Lighthizer laid out how fruitless the U.S. considered past negotiations and how the president was concerned the U.S. trade deﬁcit continued to expand. While US oﬃcials saw Mr. Lighthizer’s comments as a lawyerly argument, Chinese oﬃcials described their reaction as shocked.

Today, Mr. Lighthizer is exchanging letters with China’s senior economic envoy on measures Beijing could take to head oﬀ a trade war. Negotiations are likely to stretch over many months— an ambiguity that could rattle ﬁnancial markets and lift prices on goods earmarked for tariﬀs. . . .

Many U.S. businesses say they are fed up with what they view as unfair Chinese subsidies to local companies, and strong-arm tactics that make them hand over technology to Chinese partners. Still, they worry U.S. threats of tariﬀs could backﬁre and leave them vulnerable to retaliation. . . .

Early in the Trump administration, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a longtime Trump ally who had done business in China, was expected to lead China economic policy. He privately referred to Mr. Lighthizer, a former trade attorney, as his lawyer, say business executives, who took it as a slight. A Commerce oﬃcial said Mr. Ross meant only that the two had worked together previously on steel issues.

Mr. Ross’s star dimmed when the president dismissed an early package of deals the commerce secretary negotiated with Beijing as little more than a repackaging of past oﬀers, say senior White House oﬃcials. “Shut it down,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Ross in July when he stripped Mr. Ross of his China role and closed down the talks, according to senior administration oﬃcials.

Mr. Ross continues to work on China issues, including advising Mr. Lighthizer on which Chinese imports to target for tariﬀs, a Commerce oﬃcial said.

To so-called nationalists like trade aide Peter Navarro, who was itching to take on China, Mr. Lighthizer was a China hawk. Mr. Navarro is mainly an idea man, who has seen his role as making sure the White House carries out the president’s campaign pledge to stop China from “ripping us left and right.” Mr. Lighthizer runs a trade agency, plots strategy and carries it out. The two have worked together to develop on China policy, though they sometimes disagree on tactics.

To the so-called globalists such as former National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, who worried about the impact of trade ﬁghts on markets, Mr. Lighthizer was the skilled attorney and former congressional aide who understood how Washington worked.

To Mr. Trump, Mr. Lighthizer was a kindred spirit on trade—and one who shuns the limelight. The two men, who have a similar chip-on-the-shoulder sense of humor, bonded. Mr. Lighthizer caught rides to his Florida home on Air Force One. Mr. Trump summons Mr. Lighthizer regularly to the Oval Oﬃce to discuss trade matters, administration oﬃcials say.

“Lighthizer has everyone’s trust, regardless of their views on trade,” said Kevin Hassett, the White House chief economist. . . .

Mr. Lighthizer, on the other hand, is a skilled international trade litigator, more in the mold of former U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, who negotiated China’s entry into the WTO. The Trump team thinks China experts have been too quick to back oﬀ in negotiations with Beijing.

By the time he took oﬃce in May, the administration was ﬁghting internally over whether to impose tariﬀs on steel and aluminum imports globally. China policy was on the back burner.

While Mr. Lighthizer believed the metal glut was due to Chinese excess production, say administration oﬃcials, he thought a ﬁght at that point would be self-defeating because the focus would be on U.S. tariﬀs, not Chinese trade and investment practices. Assessing tariﬀs on all steel exporters, many of which are U.S. allies, would paint the U.S. as a villain instead of China.

Rather than risk the ire of Mr. Trump, who considered steel tariﬀs a campaign promise, Mr. Lighthizer worked quietly with Mr. Cohn and others to get the issue set aside in favor of other priorities.

U.S. trade representatives often regard themselves as lawyers for U.S. exporters, trying to open up new markets. Mr. Lighthizer saw things diﬀerently, viewing big U.S. companies as job outsourcers that sometimes had to be reined in.

At a September meeting with about 100 CEOs organized by the Business Roundtable, he said he understood they had to maximize proﬁts, which sometimes meant exporting jobs. “My job is diﬀerent,” he told the group, according to participants. “My job is to represent the American workers. We’re going to disagree.” It was a position some in the audience found arrogant. . . .

As with his boss, bluntness is his calling card. In the mid-1980s, as a U.S. Trade Representative oﬃcial who negotiated with Japan, he once grew so frustrated he took a Japanese proposal, turned it into a paper airplane and ﬂoated it back at the Japanese negotiators as a joke. In Japan, he became known as “the missile man.”

In a Senate hearing last month, when Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington said his China plans could hurt U.S. aircraft makers, he dismissed her concerns as “nonsense.”

As the U.S. moved toward confrontation with China last fall, after the August Roosevelt Room session, Mr. Lighthizer worked to make sure the administration was united. Previously, the U.S. had often balked at confronting China out of fear a ﬁght would tank the global economy and make China less willing to help on national-security issues.

Defense chief Jim Mattis, though, backed a tough approach because he was concerned China was illicitly obtaining U.S. technology and could gain a military edge, say individuals familiar with his thinking. Others in the national-security agencies were tired of what they felt were unmet Chinese promises on Korea and other security issues.

Mr. Cohn, then the economy chief, was as fed up with Beijing as Mr. Lighthizer, say oﬃcials. As a longtime president of Goldman Sachs, Mr. Cohn had lobbied to do business unimpeded in China and didn’t get the approvals he sought.

At the end of February, China sent its chief economic envoy, Liu He, to Washington to try to restart negotiations. Mr. Liu was ready to pledge that Beijing would open its ﬁnancial market.

He found a frosty welcome. The Chinese embassy had requested 40 visas so Mr. Liu could bring a full entourage. The State Department granted just a handful.

Mr. Liu couldn’t get any time with President Trump. Instead, he met with Mr. Lighthizer, Mr. Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The three delivered a simple message, say oﬃcials familiar with the talks: The U.S. isn’t going to get “tapped around” like prior administrations.

The U.S. wanted substantial changes in trade practices and barriers, which Mr. Lighthizer detailed. They included cutting the tariﬀ China imposes on auto imports from 25% to something closer to the U.S. tariﬀ of 2.5%. The U.S. also wanted a $100 billion reduction of its $375 billion annual merchandise trade deﬁcit with China. To punctuate those demands, the administration planned to threaten tariﬀs.

One more obstacle needed to be cleared away. President Trump, frustrated that the steel- tariﬀ matter had been indeﬁnitely delayed, was sympathetic to pitches by Messrs. Navarro and Ross that he should ﬁnally move on the issue. In early March, Mr. Trump said he would impose 25% tariﬀs on steel and 10% tariﬀs on aluminum from any exporting nation.

The international response threatened to drown out the China initiative as U.S. allies complained they were unfairly targeted.

On Tuesday evening, March 20, senior oﬃcials gathered again in the Roosevelt Room to decide how to proceed with the tariﬀs scheduled to go into eﬀect in three days. Mr. Navarro, the trade adviser, argued tariﬀs should be imposed across the board as the president threatened, say oﬃcials. That would increase U.S. leverage with steel-exporting nations, which could be expected to oﬀer concessions to avoid tariﬀs, he argued.

Mr. Lighthizer, aligned this time with Mr. Ross, pressed for an alternative course. Grant nearly all nations except China temporary exclusions from the tariﬀs, they proposed, according to participants, but then limit their exports through quotas. That would make the U.S. seem more reasonable in steel negotiations and help form a coalition against China.

The group produced a memo in which the diﬀerent views were articulated. Mr. Trump backed Mr. Lighthizer’s side.

With the steel issue defused, at least temporarily, Mr. Trump announced on March 22 the U.S. would threaten tariﬀs on Chinese imports. He thanked Mr. Lighthizer for his help and invited him to say a few words.

“This is an extremely important action,” Mr. Lighthizer said, “very signiﬁcant and very important for the future of the country, really, across industries.”

Over coming months, the ability of the U.S. to maintain pressure on China will depend on factors including the reaction of markets, opposition by U.S. industries and farmers, and retaliation by China against U.S. companies. Chinese leaders say they are conﬁdent they would prevail in a trade war, say U.S. individuals who have met with them recently, and chalk up U.S. threats to Mr. Trump’s midterm congressional electioneering.

Jorge Guajardo, a former Mexican ambassador to China and now a Washington consultant, has seen up close how Beijing can pressure companies and wear down governments. “The big question is, ‘Will the U.S. blink?’” he said. “Or will they stay the course so China is forced to understand there is a new way of doing business.”

As I predicted in past newsletters when Robert Lighthizer originally obtained the USTR job, he would be a very tough negotiator especially with China.

To also see the raw emotion about China’s trade policies, see the videos mentioned above at the following two links. The first link is for Robert Lighthizer’s testimony at House Ways and Means on March 21st with the focus on the Section 301 against China at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxqNWw5PObk. The second link is to the testimony of Wilbur Ross at the House Ways and Means on March 22nd at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vylt-NTsT8I. Throughout the hearings, all the Congressmen and Ross himself put tremendous emphasis on China’s overcapacity in the Steel and Aluminum industries. Many Congressmen agreed that substantial pressure had to be put on China because of its trade policy and the perception that for too long China has taken advantage of the US in trade negotiations. The videos are long, but the US emotions and political feeling about trade with China are very real.

On March 25th in another editorial entitled “Donald Trump’s China tariffs make sense”, USA Today came out in favor of the Trump trade policy with regards to China:

“The Chinese should know that business as usual isn’t fair trade: Our view

President Trump has done many counterproductive things on trade. His recently announced (and later scaled back) steel tariffs, for example, will punish car makers and other industrial users of steel. And his decision to pick fights with nations in Europe and North America needlessly angers important allies.

But with his announcement to impose penalties on up to $60 billion in Chinese imports, Trump has finally hit on a trade action that makes a certain amount of sense.

China’s numerous state-owned companies limit access to Chinese markets, while exports to the United States continue at a robust level. Its practice of requiring foreign companies to share trade secrets in return for market access is nothing short of a shakedown. And its tolerance for (perhaps even encouragement of) theft of intellectual property makes it a lawless frontier for international companies trying to do business

Trump’s threatened tariffs are meant to effect change in China, not — as is often the case with tariffs — to protect U.S. industries that know how to throw their weight around politically.

Many free-traders will see these tariffs as yet another in a long line of counterproductive moves by the president. There could be some truth to that reasoning. But the tariffs also reflect a growing belief among U.S. business leaders that a laissez-faire approach simply isn’t working.

Such an approach relies on the power of markets, free enterprise and the survival of the fittest companies. In China, however, a gargantuan, single-party state holds the leverage to dictate terms to private companies.

Whether these tariffs work is an open question. China will naturally respond with its own tariffs, focused on U.S. agricultural products, and perhaps with a more truculent foreign policy. . . .

To truly be effective, these threatened tariffs should be combined with the U.S. re-entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership…, a proposed trading zone linking 11 nations (not including China) in Asia and the Americas. In fact, if the United States were to take only one action to put pressure on China, joining the TPP would be the better approach.

TPP would turn the dispute with China into a multilateral affair. In virtually all efforts to pressure a nation to change its ways, a concerted effort by multiple nations is more successful than one nation going it alone.

The road ahead won’t be easy. Trump has not done himself any favors by alienating many U.S. allies in Canada, Mexico and Europe. Or with his rash decision, at the beginning of his presidency, to take the United States out of TPP.

Even so, there’s nothing wrong with sending a message to China that business as usual isn’t sustainable.”

On March 25th, on New York Radio, the “The Cats Roundtable,” John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser, stated:

“[T]he president was trying to communicate to signal to China is for far too long China has taken advantage of its place in the world; trade organizations and trade arrangements. The Chinese have stolen intellectual property, patent information copyrights and trademarks, business secrets. They take the information and they don’t honor the patent rights as it might be or the copyright rights — they just copy it and build their own. It’s theft. There’s no other description for it, so when you steal somebody else’s property and make money off of it yourself, it really magnifies the consequences for American industry in a very negative way.”

I think this could be a little shock therapy.”

On April 6, 2018 in an opinion piece in the Washington Post entitled, “Trump is right: China’s a trade cheat”, Fareed Zakaria, a known Trump critic and commentator on CNN, a very anti-Trump TV network, stated his agreement on Trump’s trade China trade policy:

Ever since the resignation of top advisers Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster, it does seem as if the Trump White House has gotten more chaotic, if that is possible. But amid the noise and tumult, including the alarming tweets about Amazon and Mexico, let’s be honest — on one big, fundamental point, President Trump is right: China is a trade cheat.

Many of the Trump administration’s economic documents have been laughably sketchy and amateurish. But the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s report to Congress on China’s compliance with global trading rules [see attached report China 2017 WTO Report] is an exception worth reading. In measured prose and great detail, it lays out the many ways that China has failed to enact promised economic reforms and backtracked on others, and uses formal and informal means to block foreign firms from competing in China’s market. It points out correctly that in recent years, the Chinese government has increased its intervention in the economy, particularly taking aim at foreign companies. All of this directly contradicts Beijing’s commitments when it joined the World TradeOrganization in 2001.

Whether one accepts the trade representative’s conclusion that “the United States erred in supporting China’s entry into the WTO,” it is clear that the expectation that China would continue to liberalize its markets after its entry has proved to be mistaken. . ..

Look at the Chinese economy today. It has managed to block or curb the world’s most advanced and successful technology companies, from Google to Facebook to Amazon. Foreign banks often have to operate with local partners who add zero value — essentially a tax on foreign companies. Foreign manufacturers are forced to share their technology with local partners who then systematically reverse engineer some of the same products and compete against their partners. And then there is cybertheft. The most extensive cyberwarfare waged by a foreign power against the United States is done not by Russia but by China. The targets are American companies, whose secrets and intellectual property are then shared with Chinese competitors.

China is not alone. Countries such as India and Brazil are also trade cheats. In fact, the last series of world trade talks, the Doha Round, was killed by obstructionism from Brazil and India, in tandem with China. Today the greatest threat to the open world economy comes from these large countries that have chosen to maintain mixed economies, refuse to liberalize much more and have enough power to hold firm.

The Trump administration may not have chosen the wisest course forward — focusing on steel, slapping ontariffs, alienating key allies, working outside the WTO — but its frustration is understandable. Previous administrations exerted pressure privately, worked within the system and tried to get allies on board, with limited results. Getting tough on China is a case where I am willing to give Trump’s unconventional methods a try. Nothing else has worked.

TRADE WAR CHICKEN GAME—WHO WILL BLINK FIRST?

The United States and China have now entered a game of chicken, two governments going directly at each other over trade. The question is which government will blink first: China or the United States. I firmly believe that both countries—China and the United States need to stand down and negotiate a deal, but a deal which is enforceable. We do not want this trade war to expand further.

To Chinese friends, I would say do not escalate the rhetoric. Of course, China will retaliate if the $150 billion in tariffs are imposed, but as Trump has stated many times, he is a counterpuncher. Threatening Trump is waving a red flag in front of a bull. With the very real damage to Trump’s agricultural base, he knows how very serious these US China trade negotiations will be.

As mentioned in my blog posts just after the Presidential election in 2016, Trump’s victory was a seismic tipping point. Trump won the election because he promised to be tough on trade. Trade was never a major issue in a US election. Trade and specifically trade with China has now become one of the most important political issues in the US. China is a major reason for this sea change in US politics.

As indicated above, the WSJ articulates the position of the many Americans and the US Congress perfectly. When China entered the WTO, Premier Zhu Ronji was China’s economic genius. He wanted to get China into the WTO not to appease the US, but to help China internally and push it to become a more market oriented country and to lessen the impact of the State-Owned Companies. I heard Premier Zhu make this statement in New York City in the early 2000s.

But now China appears to be moving away from a market oriented country and putting much more emphasis on State-Oriented capitalism. The Chines State uses its economic might to target technologies and increase its economic might so as to achieve a dominant economic position in the World.

The rise in China is to be expected as China achieves the very high historical position it held in the World. But if China wants to use its economic might to achieve political dominance, the World will react to that strategy and counter it.

The perception is that the WTO has done nothing to deal with Chinese mercantilism and the rise of China’s state-oriented capitalism. The WTO is to quote Mao a “paper tiger”.

The American perception of China’s mercantilism and its state-oriented capitalism means that there is little sympathy for China and that does not bode well for the future of US China trade relations.

As Trump has made clear in many political statements, his new trade policy will be reciprocity. The United States will not open its border to Chinese imports if China shuts down its own border to US exports in the same sector. The United States will not let Chinese companies invest in certain sectors of the US economy if China prohibits investment by US companies.

That is where the Trump trade policy is headed. With trade being the main political issue at the present time, I suspect that the Trump trade policy will become the US trade policy not only during the Trump Presidency but the US trade policy for many years in the future.

To my US friends, I would make the point that the Chinese have a different World view. We have the American dream, but China has its own dream. Thus, it would be a big mistake to make a personal attack on the Chinese government and the Chinese people.

On April 5th, in an article entitled “Mexican president to Trump: ‘Nothing and no one stands above the dignity of Mexico”, Politico reported:

President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico blasted Donald Trump in a video message on Thursday, vowing that “nothing and no one stands above the dignity of Mexico” and adding that the U.S. president’s main gripes were Congress’ problem, not Mexico’s. . . .

“As Mexicans, we may disagree among ourselves, especially during election periods, but we will always be united when it comes to defending our country’s dignity and sovereignty,” Peña Nieto said.

The same point stands with regards to China. On April 5th I heard a Fox News reporter state we want the US to be the hegemon, the major power in the World. China wants the same thing. They want to be the hegemon, just like the United States, the major power in the World. Does that mean that inevitably there will be a military conflict between the United States and China? Hopefully not.

One reader blasted me because I did not describe China as Communist China. Sorry, I do not want to go back to the period before Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger opened China to the outside world. I do not want to go to war with China, but “hegemon” talk fuels nationalist/jingoist talk that we the United States are so powerful everyone must bow down to us.

That is what Adolf Hitler believed with regard to Germany and his memorial in Berlin is a parking lot over his old World War 2 bunker as Germany has done everything in its power to educate the average person about the real danger of the Nazi creed and, in effect, to expunge Hitler and Nazism from its history. World War 2 left Germany destroyed and caused the deaths of 20 million people. That is where puffed up nationalism leads.

Recently, in a video called the Value of Travel, Rick Steves, a well-known travel writer and producer on PBS, stated that he spends on average 4 months every year out of the United States. Steves stated that one of the major benefits of his travel experience is that he has learned that although we in the US have the American dream, people in other countries have their own national dreams. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYXiegTXsEs.

The point is that I view China as a friendly economic competitor and would rather trade with China than go to war with it. President Xi Jinping has pledged to the peaceful rise of China, and I hope that is what China truly believes or millions of lives will be lost in another World War, something to be avoided at all costs.

The bottom line is that Trump’s trade war with China is very risky and it will be a very bumpy ride in the next few months with developments on a day by day basis. But my firm hope is trade agreements that will be win win, not only for the United States, but for our trading partners, including China. We all need good trade deals, which are enforceable.

In my second blog post, I will outline from a technical point of view, the developments in the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases, the Section 301 IP Case against China, NAFTA negotiations and new trade cases against China.

Winder Building United States Trade Representative Washington DC. United States Trade Representative is chief US trade negotiator. Winder Building created 1848

TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR OCTOBER 20, 2017

Dear Friends,

Having just returned from a month-long trip to Europe, the trade situation under the Trump Administration has heated up to the boiling point, but the target is not just China. The Trump Administration appears to be attacking all trade with the firm belief that all prior trade deals that the US entered into were a raw deal. NAFTA negotiations are at a standstill, and many believe Trump’s real intention is to kill NAFTA.

The United States is at a trade crossroads and apparently Trump and his supporters have decided to become much more protectionist, while the rest of the World is moving to free trade agreements.

As also stated below, directly contrary to statements by Trump supporters, the Trump trade policy is not a continuation of President Reagan’s trade policy. Although President Reagan took pragmatic trade actions when he had to, he was a strong free trader and we know that was his position because he said so.

President Trump is very protectionist and truly does not want free trade deals. He ripped up the TPP with no attempt at renegotiation. He has made such strong demands of Canada and Mexico that he knows they will reject with the purpose of eventually killing the deal.

The decisions on TPP and NAFTA have been taken without any real idea of the negative ramifications, the costs, of terminating these deals on US farmers and corporations, many of which have interconnected supply chains that have been finely calibrated to produce lower cost consumer products so as to be competitive with lower priced imports of that final product from China. Many believe that the real effect of killing NAFTA will be to move production to China or other lower cost countries.

Moreover, Trump won the election because of rural states and the farmers in those rural states but US agriculture is dependent on exports. When Trump slams trade, he slams his own constituents, farmers in the rural states, which elected him as President.

One of the other losers in the Trump trade policy besides agriculture will be the high tech companies because these two sectors will bear the brunt of the trade retaliation that is coming.

Trump wants to protect the low tech industry, the Steel industry with its 141,000 jobs and the heck with everyone else.

The Trump trade policy is based on one arrogant presumption—the US market is the largest in the World and the rest of the World must kowtow, come on bended knee, to get into the US and that fact gives the US leverage. But that fact is no longer true. The 11 countries in the TPP have a larger market than the US. China has a larger market than the US.

In fact, Canada and Mexico already can fall back on trade agreements they have with other countries, such as Europe. The United States does not have that luxury. The US decision by both Trump and the Democrats to go protectionist is further isolating the US in the trade area and is having and will have major negative economic ramifications on the US economy. The chickens will come home to roost.

Maybe instead of ripping up trade agreements and making US producers less competitive it is time for the United States to find a way to make its companies more competitive in the US and international markets as they exist now rather than erect protectionist barriers to international competition. Maybe the US should turn to an existing program, which has saved companies injured by imports, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program.

Commerce has made antidumping and countervailing duty investigations more political, but the EC wants to change China’s nonmarket economy status to allow a case by case determination.

But there is no sympathy for Bombardier in the Boeing fight at the Commerce Department in Civil Aircraft Preliminary determinations as Bombardier refused to cooperate with the Commerce Department’s antidumping investigation leading to a decision of all facts available. So there will be no negotiated agreement in that case. Bombardier has decided to jointly produce the plans with Airbus at its Mobile, Alabama plant, but it is questionable whether that will really work.

The US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) reached an affirmative injury determination in the Solar Section 201 case and now it moves to remedy phase.

USTR has also initiated a section 301 case against forced technology transfers in deals with China, but not many companies showed up for the USTR hearing. This may reflect the point made by my partner, Dan Harris, in his August 30, 2017 article “China US Trade Wars and the IP Elephant in the Room” that many US companies make the mistake of simply handing over their IP rights to Chinese joint venture companies with no protection. The US government cannot protect US companies from stupid mistakes.

Meanwhile, the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases remain on hold.

In a decision near and dear to my heart, USTR is charging ahead with a Wine case against BC and Canada at the WTO and now EC, Australia, Argentina and other countries are interested. Canada and BC’s protectionist position on Wine play right into Trump’s argument that NAFTA is not a free trade agreement.

China has filed an antidumping and countervailing duty case against the United States. More Antidumping and Countervailing Duty and 337 cases have been filed against China and the trade issue could well become the most important issue in upcoming elections.

If Trump makes unwise protectionist decisions, the US economy will be hurt, jobs will be lost and he will lose in the next election.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRADE AT A CROSSROADS AND IT’S NOT JUST CHINA

Prior to his election, with Trump complaining during the election about China so many times, many voters would have believed that Trump’s primary target in the trade area would be China.

But nine months after his inauguration, it is becoming clearer that Trump’s real target is trade in general. We are at a trade crossroads, and the Trump Administration with substantial support from the Democrats apparently has decided to move down a very protectionist road.

Trump and his Administration firmly believe that the United States has gotten a raw deal in all the trade deals it has entered into. In effect, Trump sees trade as economic warfare and the United States is losing the war. When economic competition from imports causes problems for US companies, it must be unfair trade caused by unfair trade deals.

Although Trump will mouth free trade, when Trump pulled out of the Trans Pacific Partnership, it was the first Free Trade Agreement that the United States had ever refused to join. As described below under the Costs article, this action has put US exporters, including farmers, at a distinct cost disadvantage in World markets and caused enormous economic damage to Trump’s own constituents, workers and farmers. Many experts believe that there is a better than 50% chance that Trump will pull out of NAFTA. See articles below from Wall Street Journal and John Brinkley at Forbes about the costs of pulling out of NAFTA.

But killing the TPP and potentially killing NAFTA gores the agriculture ox. This is the one fly in the ointment, flaw in Trump’s entire economic strategy. If the Trump trade policy hurts farmers, Trump could lose the rural states: Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, to name a few and that could lead to Trump’s loss in the next Presidential election. In contrast to arguments made by Trump supporters, rural states are not just manufacturing, they are farmers, agriculture, and one half of all US produced agricultural prorducts is exported.

In addition to agriculture, high tech companies will also be hit as they are perfect retaliation targets and all the side agreements on digital and IP protection in the TPP Agreement have died and will die.

Trump supporters attack not only the trade deals, but the WTO itself because ceding power in a trade deal or to the WTO is giving away the sovereignty of the US people. The WTO’s job, however, is to provide a forum for negotiations and adjudication of trade disputes between different sovereign countries. The United States simply cannot dictate its trade policy to other sovereign countries. It must negotiate trade agreements. If that be globalism, then so be it.

The real issue is what is the US interest in trade negotiations. The trade deals that the Trump supporters attack were negotiated by the US government and then approved by Congress. Are all treaties that create multi-government organizations as a forum for negotiations and adjudication of international disputes to be attacked because they result in giving away US sovereignty? If so, the World returns to 1914, World War 1, and the Guns of August. The United States has to negotiate with other sovereign countries. And in negotiation with other sovereign countries, the United States does not always get everything it wants to get. That is the essence of negotiations.

As stated before, the simplistic Trump approach to trade is that the United States is the largest market in the World and countries must kowtow to get into the US market. But that is no longer true. The remaining countries in the TPP represent a larger market than the US. That is why during the push for Trade Promotion Authority in the House of Representatives, House Speaker Paul Ryan stated that 75% of all consumers are outside the United States.

The Trump supporters also look at economic competition as economic warfare and, therefore, the United States must win each trade deal. But as stated below, President Reagan himself believed that economic competition is good for the United States because it is the essence of free markets.

WOULD PRESIDENT REAGAN HAVE SUPPORTED TRUMP’S ECONOMIC PROTECTIONIST NATIONALISM?—I THINK NOT

One of the basic arguments of the Trump supporters in the Trade area is that Trump’s trade policy is simply an extension of Reagan’s trade policy and, therefore, President Ronald Reagan would have supported the protectionist economic nationalism of Donald Trump. In effect, these supporters argue all trade deals in the past, including NAFTA and China’s entry into the WTO, were raw deals that hurt the US working man. These supporters argue that the trade deals are the reason for the loss of millions of US manufacturing jobs and even a major reason for the US budget deficit. Therefore, President Reagan would have opposed all of these trade deals.

But I too was in the US government during the Reagan Administration, admittedly not a political appointee, but as a line attorney at the US International Trade Commission and the Commerce Department. I do not remember the Reagan trade policy in the same way as being overly protectionist. I remember a President, who was the most Free Trade President of my generation, who firmly believed in the power of the free market and economic competition. Although President Reagan took tough trade actions as needed, he also knew that in the long run protectionism would not work because the US companies themselves would only become weaker. Reagan’s real trade policy is indicated by his actual words and actions, not summary statements by conservative pundits.

Reagan also understood that when dealing with trade, we are dealing with the interests not only of the United States, but the interests of other countries. Although the US should always represent its own interests first, it cannot dictate the outcome to other countries, because it does not have the power to do so. The EC, China, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Australia are sovereign countries too, and they have a say in international trade negotiations.

On October 14, 2017, at the Values Summit in Washington DC, Fox Contributor Laura Ingraham stated that Reagan was an economic populist and pointed to the 45% tariff issued by President Reagan in the Harley Davidson Motorcycles case and the large duties of 100% against Japanese electronics, such as semiconductors. She then argued that President Trump’s stance on trade was simply a continuation of the Reagan trade policy. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qofqnUHPGnc.

During the speech, Ingraham stated that every Free Trade Agreement must be either rewritten or repealed and that Trump like Reagan understands the working class and the need to protect US industry and jobs. She pointed to present USTR Robert Lighthizer, the former Deputy USTR under Reagan, as an example of Trump’s sterling trade policy.

But I too worked in the Reagan Administration and later under Robert Lighthizer. I simply do not remember it the way Ingraham and Robert Lighthizer, the current USTR, remember it. In the Harley Davidson Motorcycles case, for example, which happened when I was in the General Counsel’s office at the US International Trade Commission, Harley brought a case under Section 201, the Escape Clause, allowing Harley to get short term temporary protection from imports. After winning the case and after Reagan issued a temporary tariff on imports of motorcycle subassemblies from Japan (Japanese companies had manufacturing facilities in the US too), Harley after only two years asked the Reagan Administration to lift the temporary tariff because it had adjusted to import competition.

Contrast that tariff relief with the tariff relief provided to Mr. Lighthizer’s client in the Steel Industry—30 plus years of protection from imports from many, many antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders issued under US AD and CVD laws. That is not temporary tariff relief; that is permanent tariff relief. Despite that protection for decades, the US steel industry has declined with Bethlehem Steel going out of business, just as President Ronald Reagan himself predicted. Trade protection only slows the decline of industries; it does not cure the disease.

Ms. Ingraham’s speech parallels the statements she recently made in her book “Billionaire at the Barricades”, which articulates very well the thinking and many of the arguments from the Trump Administration and his supporters against trade and trade agreements in general. In the book, Ms. Ingraham states, “Except for Reagan, all modern presidents of both parties campaigned as populists but governed as globalists.” And that Conservative Populists “are against huge trade deals and international organizations like the World Trade Organization because they take power out of the hands of voters and give it to a far-away and often hostile global elite.” Page 43.

Ingraham also attacks all trade deals, especially NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Canada, and China’s entry into the WTO, along with the WTO itself. With regards to NAFTA, Ingraham states:

“but Perot and millions of Americans—the kind who don’t worship at the Wall Street Journal’s altar of globalism and internationalism for profit’s sake—knew it was a raw deal for workers and bad for America. The biggest “tell” that NAFTA was going to be a boon for elites and a bust for everyone else was the fact that George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton (as well as their Donor Class” pals) all supported the monstrosity.”

Billionaires at the Barricades at 313 (footnotes omitted).

According to Ingraham, Clinton promised that NAFTA would:

“create the world’s largest trade zone and create 200,000 jobs in this country by 1995 alone . . .Clinton not only lied, he made a “pledge” to the American working class who opposed NAFTA that they would receive “gains.”

They received pink slips instead.

The populists’ NAFTA predictions proved painfully prescient. Between 1993 and 2013, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada went from $17 billion to $177.2 billion. . .

The effects on American workers have been even more catastrophic. EPI data concluded that in just 10 years, NAFTA was responsible for displacing 851,700 American jobs. To put that in context, that’s more people than live in Columbus, Ohio. “All of the net jobs displaced were due to growing trade deficits with Mexico”. .. .The destruction of nearly one million jobs and the implosion of American manufacturing—that’s Bill Clinton’s NAFTA legacy.”

Billionaires at the Barricades at 385 to 389.

But Ingram forgets to mention that since NAFTA was enacted, total trade among these three countries has increased from $290 billion in 1993 to $1.1 Trillion in 2016 and that trade was not solely imports, but also US exports to those countries. According to the US Chamber of Commerce, six million US jobs are dependent on US trade with Mexico.

Ingraham then goes on to attack the decision to let China into the WTO:

“If NAFTA had unleashed a flood of dangerous economic currents crashing into the American working class, his [Clinton’s] decision to pave the path for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) by giving it Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR, now known as Most Favored Nation) status swelled into an outsourcing tidal wave. Millions of American manufacturing jobs were washed out to sea – the South China Sea, that is. . . .

It is “one of the most important foreign policy developments” if you want to understand the destruction of American manufacturing. It is also “one of the most important foreign policy developments” for understanding how millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs were vaporized in record speed, even as China grew at a steroidal rate of muscular economic growth.

Let’s start with the basics. The World Trade Organization was officially created during Bill Clinton’s presidency in January 1995, but it had existed in other forms since 1948. . . .

“Seventeen years hence, it is difficult to overstate the economic destruction wrought by China’s entry into the WTO and Congress and President Clinton’s decision to grant the Chinese permanent” “Most Favored Nation status. A 2016 analysis published in the Annual Review of Economics concluded that between 1999 and 2011, America lost between 2 and 2.4 million jobs. Others, like the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, put the American jobs loss figures even higher at 3.2 million jobs, when calculated between the years 2001 and 2013.50

The brutal economic reality was a cruel reversal of Clinton’s promises: all the gains were on the Chinese side, all “the losses and devastation were America’s. American manufacturing jobs were eviscerated. From 2001 to 2011, U.S. manufacturing jobs plunged from 17.1 million to 11.8 million.51 That’s a loss of 5.3 million manufacturing jobs, a figure that’s nearly the population of the entire state of Minnesota.

The narrowing of the trade deficit between the United States and China never materialized either. To the contrary, it exploded. In 2000, the annual trade in goods deficit with China stood at a towering $84 billion. After Clinton ushered China to the front of the line, the trade deficit more than quadrupled to a jaw-dropping $367 billion by 2015. The year before America let China join the WTO (1999), the United States accounted for 25.78 percent of world GDP. By 2014, that figure had dropped to 22.43—the lowest it has been in government records going back to 1969, according to the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 1999, China’s annual GDP was $1.094 trillion. In 2015, it was more than $11 trillion. In 1999, the U.S. national debt was $5.7 trillion (the good ol’ days!). Today, after the big government globalist policies of the last several presidents, U.S. national debt stands at a mind-bending $20 trillion.”

Id. at 415, 417, 427-431 (footnotes omitted).

Let me make one point very clear. The China WTO Agreement is not a Free Trade Agreement. Before China entered the WTO, it was already exporting substantial exports to the US. I know because I represented Chinese companies and US importers in many antidumping cases long before China entered the WTO. What China’s entrance into the WTO allowed the US to do was to gain leverage with China by putting Chinese trade practices into a forum, the WTO, which gave the US the ability to call some of China’s trade practices into account and discipline them. The United States has brought many cases against China at the WTO and won many and caused China to change its trade practices, but it should be noted that China has brought cases against the US at the WTO, especially in the antidumping and countervailing duty area, and won many too.

As Charlene Barshefsky, the USTR, who negotiated the US China WTO Agreement, recently stated to the Wall Street Journal in answer to the question whether China’s entry into the WTO accounted for its enormous economic growth:

”No, I don’t think he’s right. If you go back to the mid-1990s, you saw a China that was already growing at about 8%, 8.5% a year, with the world’s largest standing army, a nuclear power, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, a fifth of the world’s population, a reformist premier, Zhu Rongji, and willing to orient toward the West.

In the course of doing the WTO negotiation, China opened its market. The U.S. didn’t alter its trade regime, nor did any other country alter its trade regime. As in any WTO negotiation, it is the acceding country that needs to reform its economy.

The key point is that, in the context of a country as large as China entering, were there protections built into the agreement to prevent, for example, unexpected surges of imports? And indeed, there were—a mechanism almost never used by the very industries Steve Bannon is pointing to, although it would’ve been entirely protective of their interests.”

During that interview, Barshefsky pointed to the real China problem. After 2006 China has shifted to a more protectionist trade policy pushing US and other foreign companies and foreign imports out of China. The Trump trade policy rightly so could demand more reciprocity from China and demand that China drop its barriers to US imports and investment.

On the other hand, killing all trade with China is not the answer. Although Ms. Ingraham points to the deficits, China has become the largest importer of US products. On August 21st, in an editorial entitled “Yes, China Steals U.S. Intellectual Property, But That Doesn’t Mean Trade With China Is A Bad Thing” Investors Business Daily states:

“But didn’t the flood of Chinese factory-made goods to the U.S. decimate American manufacturing during this period? That’s a myth. As the U.S. Federal Reserve’s monthly manufacturing index shows, from 2000 to 2006 American factory output rose a healthy 11.5%. It wasn’t decimated by the surge in Chinese exports to the U.S. It only crashed when the financial crisis hit. . . .

We hope a negotiated solution can be found. At the same time, we might want to think seriously about it before we back a giant U.S.-China trade war that could make all of us, Americans and Chinese, much worse off.”

In addition, when Ms. Ingraham quotes economic data from left leaning groups, she should keep in mind that these groups are very big supporters of labor unions, which provide the backbone of the Democratic Party. Labor unions traditionally have been very, very protectionist, anti-free market and economic competition, very anti-Republican and very pro- Democratic party. That is why Senator Chuck Schumer, who Ingraham does not like, supports the Trump protectionist trade policy, but Schumer believes that Trump is not being protectionist enough. Chuck Schumer’s views are not the views of President Ronald Reagan.

But Ms. Ingraham also states that:

“Trump’s critics would do well to examine the election data on working-class rural Americans—a group who overwhelmingly went for Trump’s message of economic nationalism. Rural voters accounted for nearly one out of five votes in 2016 and were a pivotal part of Trump’s successful Rust Belt strategy. NBC News exit polls revealed that Trump beat Clinton 57 to 38 percent among Michigan’s rural voters (Romney carried the same group but by only seven percentage points). Among Pennsylvania rural voters, Trump destroyed Clinton 71 percent to 26 percent . . ..”

Id. at 1163-1164.

But Ms. Ingraham herself should also watch out because many of those rural voters are farmers and agriculture is dependent on exports. Those rural voters could turn against Trump and the Republican party and that is why Republican Senators and Congressmen from rural states are so concerned about Trump’s trade policy. Farmers want trade agreements, even if Trump and his manufacturing supporters do not. That is why after listening to the complaints of Republican Senators and Congressmen from agricultural states along with complaints of US Ambassador to China and former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, Trump told Lighthizer in the NAFTA negotiations to do no harm.

In her book, Laura Ingraham points to Reagan’s history, but misses an important point Reagan lived through the Great Depression and he firmly believed that the protectionist policies in the 1930 Smoot Hawley tariff act, which “protected” the US by increasing tariffs on almost every import, made a depression into the Great Depression. How do I know? Because President Ronald Reagan said so.

On June 28, 1986, President Reagan from his ranch in Santa Barbara gave the attache speech, BETTER COPY REAGAN IT SPEECH, on International Trade. This speech is in effect a point by point rebuttal that Reagan was an economic nationalist. So I would say to Ms. Ingraham to paraphrase Robert Dole, do not distort Ronald Reagan’s record. I have quoted the entire speech to show that it came directly from President Reagan and is not a characterization. As Reagan himself stated in the speech:

My fellow Americans:

This coming week we’ll celebrate the Fourth of July and the birthday of the Statue of Liberty, dedicated one century ago this year. Nancy and I will be in New York Harbor for the event, watching fireworks light the sky over the grand old lady who welcomes so many millions of immigrants to our shores. But I’ve often thought that Lady Liberty also represents another symbol of our openness to the rest of the world. With the ships plying the waters of New York Harbor beneath her, she reminds us of the enormous extent of our trade with other nations of the world.

Now, I know that if I were to ask most of you how you like to spend your Saturdays in the summertime, sitting down for a nice, long discussion of international trade wouldn’t be at the top of the list. But believe me, none of us can or should be bored with this issue. Our nation’s economic health, your well-being and that of your family’s really is at stake.

That’s because international trade is one of those issues that politicians find an unending source of temptation. Like a 5-cent cigar or a chicken in every pot, demanding high tariffs or import restrictions is a familiar bit of flim flammery in American politics. But cliches and demagoguery aside, the truth is these trade restrictions badly hurt economic growth.

You see, trade barriers and protectionism only put off the inevitable. Sooner or later, economic reality intrudes, and industries protected by the Government face a new and unexpected form of competition. It may be a better product, a more efficient manufacturing technique, or a new foreign or domestic competitor.

By this time, of course, the protected industry is so listless and its competitive instincts so atrophied that it can’t stand up to the competition. And that, my friends, is when the factories shut down and the unemployment lines start. We had an excellent example of this in our own history during the Great Depression. Most of you are too young to remember this, but not long after the stock market crash of 1929, the Congress passed something called the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Many economists believe it was one of the worst blows ever to our economy. By crippling free and fair trade with other nations, it internationalized the Depression. It also helped shut off America’s export market, eliminating many jobs here at home and driving the Depression even deeper.

Well, since World War II, the nations of the world showed they learned at least part of their lesson. They organized the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, to promote free trade. It hasn’t all been easy going, however. Sometimes foreign governments adopt unfair tariffs or quotas and subsidize their own industries or take other actions that give firms an unfair competitive edge over our own businesses. On those occasions, it’s been very important for the United States to respond effectively, and our administration hasn’t hesitated to act quickly and decisively.

And in September, with more GATT talks coining up once again, it’s going to be very important for the United States to make clear our commitment that unfair foreign competition cannot be allowed to put American workers in businesses at an unfair disadvantage. But I think you all know the inherent danger here. A foreign government raises an unfair barrier; the United States Government is forced to respond. Then the foreign government retaliates; then we respond, and so on. The pattern is exactly the one you see in those pie fights in the old Hollywood comedies: Everything and everybody just gets messier and messier. The difference here is that it’s not funny. It’s tragic. Protectionism becomes destructionism; it costs jobs.

And that’s why I wanted to talk with you today about some legislation that the Congress now has before it that is a throwback to the old protectionist days. It greatly cuts down my flexibility as President to bargain with and pressure foreign governments into reducing trade barriers. While this legislation is still pending before the Senate, it has already passed the House of Representatives. So, the danger is approaching. Should this bill become law, foreign governments would respond, and soon a vicious cycle of trade barriers would be jeopardizing our hard-won economic prosperity. Yes, the politicians are back at it in Washington. And should this unacceptable legislation continue to move through the Congress, I’ll need your help in sending them a message. So, please consider our talk today an early warning signal on free and fair trade, a jobs and growth alert. And stand by, I may need your help in resisting protectionist barriers that would hinder economic growth and cost America jobs.

Until next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you.

Emphasis added.

I too was in the US government during the Reagan Administration, admittedly not a political appointee, but as a line attorney at the US International Trade Commission and the Commerce Department. I too saw the Reagan trade policy and I do not remember it the way Ingraham and Robert Lighthizer, the current USTR, remember it. I saw President Ronald Reagan appoint the most free trade Commissioners in its history to the US International Trade Commission—Susan Liebeler and Anne Brunsdale — and they certainly were not economic nationalists. These free trade ITC Commissioners used to frustrate Robert Lighthizer in cases brought by the US Steel industry because they refused to go affirmative in certain cases and put antidumping and countervailing duty orders in place.

Let me say at the outset, I am not a Libertarian. I have no problem with trade policy that hammers countries to open markets. I have no problem with a domestic policy of low taxes and less regulation. We need to make our companies, farmers and workers more competitive by giving them back the money they have earned.

I also believe that making America great again and putting America’s interests first is a correct policy position. I am not a globalist, but firmly believe that we first must know what America’s interest is.

But as indicated below, in the post on Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, I firmly believe, like Ronald Reagan, who personally approved of the program, that an answer to the trade crisis is not more protectionism, but finding ways to make US companies more competitive.

Like Ronald Reagan, who was a free trader, I do not believe in putting up protectionist trade barriers, which are not temporary and can stay in place for 30 plus years, such as antidumping and countervailing duty orders against steel that wipe out imports and make downstream companies less competitive, is in the interest of the United States.

As President Reagan himself stated, “the protected industry is so listless and its competitive instincts so atrophied that it can’t stand up to the competition,” and competition is what makes and will make America great again.

Like Ronald Reagan I do not believe that protection in the long run saves the industries it is trying to protect. Robert Lighthizer for decades at Skadden, Arps represented US Steel in the Steel Trade Wars. My former boss, Mike Stein, represented Bethlehem Steel for decades in the Steel Wars along with Lighthizer, but where is Bethlehem Steel today after 40 years of protection from steel imports—green fields. Green fields when the steel industry has been protected to some degree for decades from steel imports.

Why? Despite the protection from steel imports, Bethlehem Steel management and union did not take the protection and adjust to import competition so as to make their production facilities more competitive. In the 90s, when given protection in a Section 201 case from imports, US Steel bought Marathon Oil. All the trade protection the US can provide will not save the companies if they want to give their workers exorbitant pensions and their management large bonuses and reduce their own competitiveness in the World market.

Antidumping orders against steel imports have led to a higher US steel price than the World market price. Steel, however, is a raw material input and the antidumping orders against Steel have led to US antidumping orders brought by injured US industries against imports of ironing tables, folding metal tables and chairs, wind towers, stainless steel sinks, boltless steel shelving, steel nails and a myriad of other products that use US steel as a raw material input. The disease of the steel industry has spread to the downstream steel using industries.

During the speech Laura Ingraham asked what is the problem with trade protectionism? One major problem is that trade is a two-way street and what the United States does to one country that country can do back to the United States. The United States cannot dictate trade policy to the other countries in the World because they are sovereign too. Also the entire world is moving to an open market, when the US appears to be moving backward to a protectionist US market. This puts US companies and farmers at a distinct cost disadvantage because it means US exports cannot compete on a level playing field, by Trump’s choice

Lighthizer’s and Trump’s answer to trade problems is simply to put up one more brick and build the protectionist wall higher against imports. If Ms. Ingraham wants a history lesson, I suggest she look at two countries—recently Japan and less recently China, who followed that same strategy. In the 1980’s when I was at the ITC and Commerce, the big trade target was Japan. Having worked in Japan I knew that it had numerous non-tariff trade barriers, which blocked many US exports. Then in the early 1990s Japan’s economy imploded and it entered into the lost decades in large part because of its own trade policy, which explains why Prime Minister Abe wants the TPP.

China also did exactly what Laura Ingraham is proposing. China closed down and its economy took a nose dive and went back to the Dark Ages. It took Deng Xiaoping and later Zhu Rongyi to open up China. China grew not because of the United States, but because it opened its economy up as it was in China’s economic interest to do so. Many US companies have joint ventures in China. When GM was having economic problems in the Obama Administration, the one part of the company it was trying to save was its China operations because the GM Buick was the number one selling car in China. If the US shuts down, it too like China will go back to the dark ages.

Essentially, Trump appears to be adopting the mercantilist trade policies that he has condemned. With its focus on trade deficits in manufacturing, Trump’s trade policy appears to be that the only trade deals we want are those where the US has a trade surplus. That is not the way the World works.

THE TRADE WEAKNESS IN DONALD TRUMP’S ECONOMIC POLICY—THE COSTS OF NOT DOING THE TRADE DEALS

As stated in my last blog post, President Trump dropped the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement, has made noises about dropping the US Korea agreement and is on the verge of killing the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) with Mexico and Canada.

During the time when the TPP was being discussed in Congress, its passage was in trouble because many Senators and Congressmen believe the US did not get enough. Senator Orin Hatch wanted more on biologics and other Senators and Congressmen wanted a a better deal.

But the big problem at the Trump Presidential and Congressional level with regards to these trade agreements was and is the failure to calculate the cost of not doing these trade agreements or of terminating them. Keep in mind the only party that is more protectionist than Donald Trump is the Democrats. Also with Steve Bannon’s attacks on “establishment” Republicans, free traders in the Republican party are becoming few and far between.

The Bannon and Trump approach reveal fatal misunderstandings. Steve Bannon and Donald Trump have not figured out one important point: Not only do companies compete against each other and States compete against each other, but the United States and other countries compete against each other. The US decision to go the Protectionist route means it has given up competing and has created an open road for the economic competitors of US, including EC, China, Mexico, Canada, Australia and other countries, who are all moving in to replace US exports in those markets. Trump’s and Bannon’s policy combined with the Democrat’s protectionist policies mean the US will lose the economic war because of the US failure to compete in the international economic marketplace.

The arrogance of the Steve Bannon and the Trump trade policy is based on the principle that the United States is the largest market in the World, and this gives the US leverage and, therefore, countries must kowtow and bend their head to get into the US market. Although that principle may have been true twenty years ago, it is simply no longer true.

The Trans Pacific Partnership, for example, combines the markets of 12 countries, now 11 with the US exit, into one “huge” trading block. Since Mexico, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand are part of that block, the TPP market is a much larger market than the US alone.

Also in many ways, with 1.37 billion people China has a larger market than the US. In 2006, at a speech in Beijing, the US Commercial Attaché stated that 75% of all Chinese, including rural Chinese, have a color television set. Now that is close to 95% of 1.37 billion. That is a larger market than the US with its 323 million.

But it is the costs of terminating the TPP deal, which are becoming much more clear.

As stated in my last newsletter, the ox that will be gored by Trump’s trade policy is agriculture and that is just what is happening. Mexico and Canada are also in a stronger trade position than the US because they already have free trade agreements with a number of other countries, including the EC, and that gives them a substantial competitive advantage getting into those markets. This fact gives Canada and Mexico leverage in the NAFTA negotiations even though Trump, Lighthizer and Ross simply do not understand the dynamics of the deal.

for the already struggling agricultural sector, the sprawling 12- nation TPP, covering 40 percent of the world’s economy, was a lifeline. It was a chance to erase punishing tariffs that restricted the United States—the onetime “breadbasket of the world”—from selling its meats, grains and dairy products to massive importers of foodstuffs such as Japan and Vietnam.

The decision to pull out of the trade deal has become a double hit on places like Eagle Grove. The promised bump of $10 billion in agricultural output over 15 years, based on estimates by the U.S. International Trade Commission, won’t materialize. But Trump’s decision to withdraw from the pact also cleared the way for rival exporters such as Australia, New Zealand and the European Union to negotiate even lower tariffs with importing nations, creating potentially greater competitive advantages over U.S. exports.

A POLITICO analysis found that the 11 other TPP countries are now involved in a whopping 27 separate trade negotiations with each other, other major trading powers in the region like China and massive blocs like the EU. Those efforts range from exploratory conversations to deals already signed and awaiting ratification. Seven of the most significant deals for U.S. farmers were either launched or concluded in the five months since the United States withdrew from the TPP.. . .

In other words, the entire World is moving in the direction of President Ronald Reagan to a more open free trading market, which would have benefitted US companies greatly. The US is following Trump’s trade policy and moving backward to a more closed protectionist market.

The article went on to state the numerous free trade agreements being negotiated by the other countries in the TPP and now those Agreements are putting US farmers at a distinct disadvantage. EC pork farmers, which already exports as much pork to Japan as the United States does, have an advantage of up to $2 per pound over U.S. exporters. European wine producers, who sold more than $1 billion to Japan between 2014 and 2016, have a 15 percent tariff advantage over U.S. exporters.

When Donald Trump pulled out of the TPP, Japan turned around and offered the same deal to the EC, which the United States had spent two excruciating years extracting from Japanese trade officials. The United States is now left out.

Four Latin-American countries—Mexico, Peru, Chile and Colombia, known as the Pacific Alliance are opening negotiations with New Zealand, Australia and Singapore.

Australia is selling beef at a lower price than the US to Japan. Without the TPP, Australian ranchers eventually will enjoy a 19 percent tariff advantage over U.S. competitors.

With the TPP, economic forecasts already show projected gains for countries involved. Canada, according to one estimate, could permanently gain an annual market share of $412 million in beef and $111 million in pork sales to Japan by 2035, because lower tariffs would enable it to eclipse America’s position in the market.

Over the first five months of 2017, U.S. exports to Japan of chilled pork, which is preferable to frozen meat, are up 2 percent over the previous year. But exports of chilled pork from Canada, a prime competitor, are up 19 percent. Likewise, in frozen pork, U.S. exports are up 28 percent. But exports from the EU, the leading competitor, are up 44 percent.

Now there are more indicators that Canada, Mexico and Japan are turning away from US imports because of the Trump protectionist positions.

COSTS OF PULLNG OUT OF NAFTA AND TPP

CANADA

In an October 16, 2017 article in the Globe and Mail, “Canada must prepare for life after NAFTA” former Canadian trade negotiator Gordon Ritchie stated:

“The Canadian government (as well as the provinces, business and labour) is now forced to contemplate life without a free-trade agreement. While this is far from a preferred choice, it would not be the end of the world. In the absence of a bilateral agreement, the most-favored-nation rules of the World Trade Organization would apply and offer many of the same protections. Tariffs would be restored, but at a much lower level than before the free-trade agreement, averaging roughly 3.5 per cent on shipments to the United States. Unquestionably, existing economic linkages would be put under stress but most would survive. This is clearly not the option the Canadian government would prefer but it could be better than what is currently on offer from the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, the impact on U.S. businesses would be just as severe if not more so. In an unprecedented statement, the U.S. chamber of commerce, the broadest and perhaps most influential business lobby, came out strongly against dismantling NAFTA, which it earlier estimated underpinned about 12 million American jobs.”

MEXICO

On October 16, 2017 in an article entitled “Mexico Braces for the Possible Collapse of Nafta”, the New York Time reported:

“Mexico is steeling itself for the increasing possibility that the United States will pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, envisioning how the Mexican economy would adapt without the deal that has guided relations between the neighbors for a quarter-century. . .

President Enrique Peña Nieto recently traveled to China to discuss trade, among other issues; Mexico is a member of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord.

Already new suppliers are emerging. In December, Argentina is expected to deliver 30,000 tons of wheat, its first sale ever to Mexico. Crisp Chilean apples have begun to appear on Mexico’s supermarket shelves, next to piles of apples from Washington State. . . .

Still, the question is what a post-Nafta economy would look like. The Mexican government’s view is that the United States market would remain largely open.

Without Nafta, American duties on Mexican goods would revert to levels set by the World Trade Organization.

The figures vary, although the average is estimated to be about 3 percent for manufactured products. Cars assembled in Mexico, for example, would pay a duty of 2.5 percent.

“Do we like those duties? No. Can we live with them? Yes,” said Luis de la Calle, a former trade negotiator for Mexico. “The integration of Mexico, the United States and Canada will continue regardless of the governments. . . .

If tariffs rise, one possible effect could be that companies move more production from the United States to Mexico to reduce the number of parts requiring duty payments.

The other risk is that companies move production to Asia, buying parts there instead of in North America, and paying a single duty when the finished product enters the United States.

Ford Motor Company set the example this year. In January, it scrapped plans to build a factory in Mexico to produce the Focus, a small passenger car, a decision that won praise from Mr. Trump. But in June, the company announced that it would build a new Focus factory in China instead. . . .”

JAPAN

Despite Japanese noises of a bilateral trade agreement with the US after meetings with Vice President Pence, on October 15, 2017 in the attached article entitled “Japan exasperated by Trump’s trade policies”, Japan exasperated by Trump’s trade policies – POLITICO, Politico reported:

“As U.S. farmers suffer under high tariffs, Japanese officials are in no rush to cut a new trade deal with the United States.

TOKYO — Japanese officials are expressing growing frustration with the Trump administration’s economic policies, vowing to continue striking trade deals with other countries that undercut U.S. agricultural exports rather than seek a new trade agreement with the United States.

The frustration comes both from President Donald Trump’s harsh rhetoric on trade and from his pullout from the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Japan still hopes can provide a bulwark against China’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific region.

Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that the failure of the TPP is taking a sharp toll on rural America. In August, the volume of U.S. sales of pork to Japan dropped by 9 percent year over year, a serious blow to farmers who had been preparing for a big increase in sales because of lower tariffs in the TPP.

Instead, other countries that export meats, grains and fruits have seized on their advantage over American growers and producers in the wake of the U.S. pullout from the TPP. And a new Reuters poll shows Trump’s favorability in rural America — once a great stronghold — dropped from 55 percent last winter to 47 percent in September. The poll also showed a plunge in support for Trump’s trade agenda among rural voters. . . .

in interviews with POLITICO, more than half a dozen senior Japanese officials said they were uneasy with a so-called bilateral — two-nation — deal to replace the TPP, arguing that the goal of the multinational agreement was to create a wide international playing field. They said they are dismayed by Trump’s seeming inability to understand the importance of a multinational pact to establish U.S. leadership in the region and set the trade rules for nations on both sides of the Pacific Ocean as a counterweight to China’s rising influence.

“Our prime minister has made it quite clear that we respect the U.S. decision. … That is our official position, but I think withdrawal from TPP is very wrong,” said one senior official. “Honestly, it has diminished many of things that the U.S. has achieved in the region.”

In response, Japan has continued negotiating with American trade competitors, striking a political deal on a landmark free-trade agreement with the European Union in July while continuing to work toward closing a deal with the 11 remaining members of the TPP. In interviews, the senior Japanese officials made clear their ultimate goal is to persuade the United States to rejoin the TPP.

“In the conduct of our affairs with the United States, we need to have leverage,” said one former senior Japanese Cabinet official. “In order for us to convince the U.S., we need to have our own leverage, and our own leverage needs to be free-trade agreements [with U.S. competitors].”

There are some signs the Japanese strategy is working. Republicans in Congress, many of whom were TPP supporters, are expressing impatience with the administration and a conviction that U.S. agricultural industries are suffering because of tensions unleashed by the TPP pullout.

“We cannot allow much more time to lapse in creating opportunities to have other agreements, and especially when you look at Japan,” said Rep. Dave Reichert of Washington state, chairman of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, as his panel wrapped up a hearing last week on trade opportunities in the Asia Pacific region.

Trump himself has shown no sign of second- guessing his pullout from the TPP, which he described in an interview with Forbes magazine this month as “a great honor.”

“I consider that a great accomplishment, stopping that. And there are many people that agree with me,” he said. “I like bilateral deals.” . . . .

Perdue’s comments came amid growing frustration in the farm belt. U.S. producers expect to continue losing market share in meat exports to other countries, even as domestic production reaches an all-time high, until something is done to address high import tariffs on the other side of the Pacific. Japan remains the top market for U.S. beef, and exports are up 22 percent from a year ago, but the impact of a recent hike in tariffs on frozen beef from 38.5 percent to 50 percent — a move that would have been avoidable if the TPP had been in force — will soon be felt, the U.S. Meat Export Federation predicts. The volume of pork exports of pork to Japan, the leading market for the U.S. in terms of value, dropped by 9 percent in August year over year. . . .

But Japan is in no rush to do so, according to the interviews with senior Japanese officials, who suggested that their country’s frustrations with the Trump administration are vast. . . .

For the ever-powerful career officials who sit in the unadorned buildings lining the leafy streets of Tokyo’s government district, there is one concern about the U.S. president that overrides all others: Trump’s determination to measure the effectiveness of trade deals in terms of which side sells more to the other.

Indeed, there are many people in the United States who share the view that free trade grows the global pie, with competition serving to promote efficiency and let countries take advantage of their own assets — such as the vast farming sector in the center of the United States, which has no parallel in Japan. . . .

Trump’s view, backed up by “American first” rhetoric, presumes that countries are inherently competitors, and that there are clear winners and losers.

“We want to avoid the relationship turning into a zero-sum game,” said a senior Japanese official.

“Each country has its own policy objectives, but Japan does not see trade deficits or surplus as the only driving force for trade negotiations,” said another senior government official. “A rules-based system is very important.”

Thus, Japanese officials are watching closely as the Trump administration renegotiates the North American Free Trade Agreement through ongoing talks with Canada and Mexico. To support its America- first agenda, the administration is threatening to blow up the 23-year-old trade deal and unravel complex supply chains that have grown over the life of the pact.

“They’re watching NAFTA and, frankly, in East Asia, they’re saying if the United States is so stupid as to screw up its agreements with its continental powers in Canada and Mexico, what can we in East Asia expect from these guys?” said Robert Zoellick, who served as President George W. Bush’s chief trade negotiator and later as World Bank president. “That’s a realistic question.” . . .

The failure of the TPP is a subject of contention between the two men — because Japan not only risked its economic future in hopes of a multinational trade deal but also pinned much of its national security hopes on the deal.

The need to counter the growing clout of China is an all-consuming priority in Tokyo, and Japanese officials felt that with the TPP they were on the verge of a genuine breakthrough, tying the United States, Canada, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile and other large nations on both sides of the Pacific into an economic alliance greater than anything China could muster. . . .

Seeking to fill the void left by the TPP, China has accelerated the pursuit of its own mega-deal with other Asian nations, called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP.

The United States leaving TPP “created a vacuum in the region, that’s for sure,” the official said. “It’s why RCEP is gaining momentum. That is why the government is asking the U.S. to come back to the TPP. We keep continuing to say so.” . . .

“The Japanese government has no mind of going back to the table for a bilateral negotiation,” said another senior official. “TPP was risky for Abe; a bilateral will require an even bigger leap.”

AGRICULTURE

On September 11, 2017 in article in Bloomberg entitled, “Four Ways to Rebuild Consensus on Agricultural Trade, The U.S. is losing ground fast to global rivals in Asia”, two former US Senators Max Baucus and Richard Lugar stated that they had formed a new group, Farmers for Free Trade stating:

“The financial health of American farmers depends on trade. In what remains the “breadbasket of the world,” U.S. farmers export half of all major commodities they grow, contributing to a projected trade surplus of $20 billion this year alone and supporting millions of direct and indirect jobs. At a time when American farm incomes have been rapidly declining, trade is what’s helping to keep farmers, ranchers and many rural communities afloat.

Not so long ago, we served in Washington D.C. when these realities were well understood. It was a time when bipartisan support for opening new markets to our farmers was assumed and expected. As globalization took hold, we understood that trade agreements were our only tool to ensure that American wheat, soy or beef could out-compete other countries’ products vying for the same markets. It was a consensus that delivered for millions of American farmers. Today, that consensus has faded.

American agricultural trade is facing risks not seen in a generation. Public attitudes toward trade agreements have shifted as protectionist sentiment has grown. Threats of tariffs on U.S. trading partners invite the specter of retaliation. Meanwhile, our competitors plot to assume the mantle of global supplier the U.S. has long occupied.

We need to rebuild consensus on agriculture trade. It must be one that incorporates the position of American farmers; that reflects the needs of rural communities; that is echoed by state and local leaders, and that seeks to heal the deep fissures on trade in Washington D.C.

We believe that consensus can be built around four important steps.

First, we need to get off the sidelines and get back in the business of negotiating trade agreements. The U.S. currently does not have a single ongoing trade negotiation that gives our farmers access to the rapidly growing Asian market. Our absence in Asia means that China is quickly moving into the void with its own trade deals that outflank U.S. agricultural producers. One of those China-led deals, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, involves 15 other Asia-Pacific countries with growing middle classes, many of whom are clamoring for the agricultural bounty the U.S. once supplied.

Meanwhile, agriculture powerhouses like Canada, New Zealand and Australia are cutting bilateral deals that provide preferential treatment for their commodities.

Take the example of beef. According to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, as of this week, the U.S. has now lost out to Australia on more than $165 million in beef sales to Japan. That happened because Australia cut a trade deal with Japan in 2015, and we recently walked away from one.

These sharp competitive disadvantages are becoming the norm, and while it’s difficult to calculate all the untapped gains the U.S. has lost, the numbers are clear on how we reverse the trend. Since 2003, U.S. agricultural exports to countries we do have trade agreements with increased more than 136 percent.

Second, we need to remove the threat of retaliation against U.S. agriculture. Our trading partners are not novices when it comes to whom and what they retaliate against when the U.S. runs afoul of our international commitments. U.S. farmers are always target number one.

That is because our trading partners know it is the economic engine for so many states, and because the pain inflicted is immediate and acute.

For example, the last time Mexico retaliated against the U.S., their targets included everything from corn, to apples, to almonds and grapes. The Department of Agriculture estimated that those measures cost U.S. growers close to $1 billion in lost sales.

We know there are onerous trade practices that must be addressed through diplomacy and other mechanisms for setting disputes. But threatening our closest trading partners with blanket tariffs, border taxes or aggressive enforcement actions risks a trade war that would have no winners.

Third, we need to modernize NAFTA in a way doesn’t erode the enormous gains it has delivered for American farmers and ranchers. That means working to eliminate any remaining tariff and non-tariff barriers, simplifying packaging and labeling requirements, and improving agriculture opportunities through e-commerce platforms.

But it also means doing no harm to a pact that — according to the Farm Bureau — has resulted in an annual jump of agriculture exports from $8.9 billion in 1993 to $38 billion last year.

The Trump administration has a real opportunity to expand on those gains. They should do it quickly and thoughtfully so we can turn to the task of keeping pace with our competitors.

Finally, to rebuild consensus on trade, we need to organize and educate. We know there are officials in the administration and in Congress who understand the value of agricultural trade. Yet, recent trade debates have too often become a microcosm of our broader partisan politics.

To support this effort, we’re launching a bipartisan, not-for-profit organization called Farmers for Free Trade, to build a coalition of farmers, mayors and community leaders in congressional districts across the country. This isn’t only about the over 1 million U.S. jobs supported by agriculture trade, but also the secondary and tertiary jobs it creates in rural communities: from growers, harvesters, processors, and packagers to grain elevator operators, railroad workers, truck drivers and port operators.

Rebuilding consensus on trade begins in the heartland and capitalizes on the great strength of American farmers and ranchers. If we can do that, America wins.”

U.S. ANTI-TRADE STANCE AIDS EU

Meanwhile who benefits from the US decision to turn toward protectionism, other countries and the EU. Jyrki Katainen, the European Commission’s vice president for jobs, growth, investment and competitiveness recently stated:

“We are willing to negotiate with third countries all the time – it’s part of our economic strategy. And now we have seen that many countries have been concerned about rising protectionism and entities which undermine the multilateral system, so they have been contacting us.”

The Wall Street Journal article below outlines the negative impact of terminating NAFTA on the US automobile industry.

US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Instead of listening to the protectionist steel industry and the unions, maybe it is time for the Trump Administration to listen to the winners in the Trade World. On October 10, 2017, in Mexico City, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue spoke out against the Trump administration’s approach to negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he said has been riddled with “unnecessary and unacceptable” poison pill proposals from the U.S. side. As Donohue stated:

“All of these proposals are unnecessary and unacceptable. They have been met with strong opposition from the business and agricultural communities, congressional trade leaders, the Canadian and Mexican governments, and even other U.S. agencies. Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve reached a critical moment, and the Chamber has had no choice but ring the alarm bells.

“[NAFTA withdrawal] would abruptly slam the door on future negotiations because those governments have made it very clear they won’t negotiate with a gun to their head. The United States could then reasonably expect trade retaliation … higher tariffs … broken supply chains … and potentially less cooperation on other priorities like anti-terrorism and anti-narcotics efforts.”

Donohue specifically criticized the foolish reliance on the need for the agreement to reduce the U.S. trade deficit:

“The business community, along with any economist worth his or her salt, has repeatedly explained that the trade balance is not only the wrong way to measure who’s ‘winning’ on trade, it’s the wrong focus, and is impossible to achieve without crippling the economy.”

NAFTA NEGOTIATIONS HAVE STALLED

On August 16th, United States, Canada and Mexico sat down together for the first round of talks to formally reopen NAFTA. On July 17th, the USTR released its attached “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation”, USTR NAFTA RENGOTIATION OBJECTIVES:

On October 18th, Politico reported that the NAFTA negotiations are at a standstill as Canada and Mexico have rejected the strident US proposals and potentially insurmountable disagreements on areas ranging from auto rules of origin to dairy market access and a sunset provision. The next round is to start on November 17th in Mexico.

At the closing press conference, the Canadian and Mexican trade ministers attacked the United States for making impractical demands and an overall unwillingness to compromise.

US Robert Lighthizer responded:

“Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners. As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and a reduction in these huge trade deficits.

We have seen no indication that our partners are willing to accept any change that will result in a rebalacing and a reduction in these huge trade deficits. Now I understand that after many years of one-sided benefits, their companies have become reliant on special preferences and not just comparative advantage. Countries are reluctant to give up unfair advantages.”

In a press briefing in his private conference room, Lighthizer later stated that his primary goal is to reduce the trade deficit and:

“take away what I consider to be in many cases artificial incentives to encourage investment overseas that are not market based. If we get that right, we’ll have an agreement that the president will be enthused about and at that point if the president is enthused, I think the Congress will be enthused.”

Lighthizer has also argued that NAFTA is just frosting on the cake for major corporations:

“I think it’s possible to take a little of the sugar away and have them say, ‘Yeah we’re still doing pretty well. I understand that everybody that’s making money likes the rules the way that they are. That’s how it works and they can make a little less money or make more money in a different way and we can get the trade deficit down and we can also have what I consider at least in the investment realm to be a market-based investment decision. I think if we do that business will be fine, and if we do that labor will come along and say this is a step in the right direction and it’s worth changing the paradigm in doing that.”

On October 16, 2017, in an article entitled Trump’s NAFTA Threat”, the Wall Street Journal made the opposing argument.

“Donald Trump is threatening again to terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement if Canada and Mexico don’t agree to his ultimatums.

If this is a negotiating tactic of making extreme demands only to settle for much less and claim victory, maybe it will work. Otherwise Mr. Trump is playing a game of chicken he is playing a game of chicken that he can’t win

Mr. Trump’s obsession with undoing Nafta threatens the economy he has so far managed rather well. The roaring stock market, rising GDP and tight job market are signs that deregulation and the promise of tax reform are restoring business and consumer confidence. Blowing up Nafta would blowup all that too. It could be the worst economic mistake by a U.S. President since Richard Nixon trashed Bretton-Woods and imposed wage and price controls.

U.S. demands in the Nafta renegotiations­ which returned to Washington last week-are growing more bizarre. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer now wants to add a sunset clause, which would automatically kill it in five years unless all three governments agree to keep it. In other words, the U.S. proposes to increase economic uncertainty and raise the incentive for businesses to deploy capital to more reliable investment climates.

The U.S. also wants to change Nafta’s “rules of origin” for autos. Cars now made in North America can cross all three borders duty-free if 62.5% of their content is Nafta-made. Mr. Lighthizer wants to raise that to 85% and add a sub­ clause requiring 50% be made in the U.S.

Mr. Lighthizer needs to get out more. Nafta’s current rules-of-origin for autos are already the highest of any trade agreement in the world, says John Murphy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Raising them would give car makers an incentive to source components from Asia and pay America’s low 2.5% most -favored-nation tariff. A higher-content rule would hurt Mexico, but it won’t bring jobs to the U.S

It’s hard to overstate the damage that ending Nafta would inflict on the U.S. auto industry. Under Nafta, companies tap the comparative advantages of all three markets and have created an intricate web of supply chains to maximize returns. As Charles Uthus at the American Automotive Policy Council said last week, Nafta “brings scale, it brings competitiveness, it brings efficiencies [and] synergies between all three countries, and it brings duty-free trade.” Its demise would be “basically a $10 billion tax on the auto industry in America.”

Last week the Boston Consulting Group also released a study sponsored by the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association that found ending Nafta could mean the loss of 50,000 American jobs in the auto-parts industry as Mexico and Canada revert to pre­ Nafta tariffs.

Mexico has elections next year and no party that bows to unreasonable demands by Mr. Trump can win. The Mexican political class appears willing to call his bluff, which is making American business very nervous. More than 300 state and local chambers of commerce signed an Oct. 10 letter to Mr. Trump imploring him to “first ‘do no harm’ in the Nafta negotiations.”

It noted that 14 million American jobs rely on North American daily trade of more than $3.3 billion. “The U.S. last year recorded a trade surplus _o f $11.9 billion with its NAFTA partners when manufactured goods and services are combined,” the letter said. “Among the biggest beneficiaries of this commerce are America’s small and medium-sized businesses, 125,000 of which sell their goods and services to Mexico and Canada.”

Ending Nafta would be even more painful for U.S. agriculture, whose exports to Canada and Mexico have quadrupled under Nafta to $38 billion in 2016. Reverting to Mexico’s pre-Nafta tariff schedule, duties would rise to 75% on American chicken and high-fructose corn syrup; 45% on turkey, potatoes and various dairy products; and 15% on wheat. Mexico doesn’t have to buy American, and last week it made its first wheat purchase from Argentina-30,000 tons for December delivery.

Canada and Mexico know that ending Nafta will hurt them, but reverting to pre-Nafta tariff levels could hurt the U.S. more. Mr. Trump can hurt our neighbors if he wants, but the biggest victims will be Mr. Trump’s voters.”

On October 16, 2017, in an article entitled “Trump Trying To Destroy NAFTA with Pin Pricks Instead Of A Sledgehammer” John Brinkley at Forbes outlined the US demands in the NAFTA negotiations and why they are being rejected:

“It appears increasingly likely that NAFTA is headed for the trash heap. People involved in the re-negotiation of the 23-year-old trade pact are pessimistic about its chances for survival, because the Trump administration seems bent on causing its death by 1,000 cuts.

An inexplicable aspect of this is that there is no constituency in the United States for NAFTA’s termination.

Not even the most fervent NAFTA-haters — e.g., the AFL-CIO, the Sierra Club, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, and Democratic House members from Rust Belt states — have demanded the death of NAFTA. Businesses large and small, farmers and ranchers, mayors of most American cities and most members of Congress want NAFTA to stay in force. No one of note has said NAFTA has to go. So, whose interests is President Trump trying to protect?

It’s clear that what he would like to do is simply withdraw from the agreement, which he can easily do by providing Canada and Mexico six months’ notice in writing. But instead, his negotiators have tabled several proposals – poison pills would be a more apt description – that they know the Canadians and Mexicans won’t accept. This will allow Trump to blame them for NAFTA’s demise.

“Issues are being put on the table that are practically absurd,” former Mexican Jaime Serra told Reuters during the fourth round of talks, which ended Sunday. “I don’t know if these are poison pills, or whether it’s a negotiating position or whether they really believe they’re putting forward sensible things.”

Here are four of them:

A sunset provision that would automatically terminate NAFTA after five years unless all three countries vote to keep it in force.

Deletion of NAFTA Chapter 19, which allows parties to defend themselves against dumping and illegal subsidies by one another.

A change to automotive rules of origin that would make it more difficult for Canada and Mexico to export cars to the United States.

Let’s look briefly at each of these.

A five-year sunset clause would add so much uncertainty to NAFTA’s future that businesses in all three countries would be reluctant to plan and invest with regard to cross-border trade. It would also trigger a renegotiation of NAFTA every five years.

Scrapping Chapter 19 would end 23 years of fairness and equality in the way the three NAFTA parties pursue anti-dumping and illegal subsidy cases. Conservative opponents of Chapter 19 say it impinges on U.S. sovereignty by requiring the government to adhere to a supranational system. That is an argument based on principle. It has no practical merit.

ISDS allows a private company operating in a foreign country to challenge an action by that country’s government that hurts the company. Allowing one country to opt in or out of ISDS would be like allowing a driver who is pulled over for speeding to opt out of having to obey the law against speeding – sorry, officer, I have my own speed limit and it’s higher than yours.

NAFTA requires that 62.5% of the content of NAFTA-built cars and light trucks originate in the U.S. if those vehicles are to be exported duty-free to the U.S. The Trump administration wants to raise that to 80%. This is a purely protectionist measure that would raise the price of cars sold in the United States, including those made here.

The governments of Mexico and Canada vehemently oppose these proposals and others the administration has presented. But Trump has said, no problem, if the NAFTA renegotiations don’t work out, he’s willing to negotiate separate bilateral free trade agreements with the two countries.

It’s apparent that what he really wants is to get rid of Mexico. He has said most illegal Mexican immigrants were rapists and murderers, vowed to build a wall along the Mexican border, threatened to invade the country to rid it of some unspecified “bad hombres,” and threatened to impose a 20% border tax.

And we’re to believe that he wants to sit down with the Mexican government and negotiate a free trade agreement in good faith?

Yeah, right.”

TRUMP THREATS ARE NOT WORKING WITH THE US SOUTH KOREA TRADE AGREEMENT

Meanwhile, South Korean Trade Minister Kim Hyun-chong recently indicated that Seoul is willing to let President Donald Trump kill the pact, rather than bow to unreasonable U.S. demands for concessions to bring bilateral trade more into balance.

Kim also stated that cutting trade ties with South Korea will only push the country, as a matter of necessity, economically closer to China, the source said.

US ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES BECOME MORE POLITICAL

Recently there has been a distinct difference in the antidumping and countervailing duty area. Friends have told me that internally at Commerce all countervailing duty and antidumping duty determinations go to the Secretary’s office of his personal review. That was not true when I was at the Commerce Department during the Reagan Administration.

Countervailing duty and antidumping determinations are legal proceedings that are subject to Court review. The Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can overturn as not based on substantial evidence on the record if there is not a factual underpinning for the Commerce Department decisions.

If politics become a large part of the case, that is a reason for the Court to overturn Commerce decisions as arbitrary and capricious and not based on substantial evidence on the record.

Every time Commerce issues a determination in an antidumping and countervailing duty case, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross makes a personal statement. When the Countervailing Duty preliminary determination of 212% in the Bombardier Civil Aircraft case was issued, Secretary Ross stated:

“The U.S. values its relationships with Canada, but even our closest allies must play by the rules. The subsidization of goods by foreign governments is something that the Trump Administration takes very seriously, and we will continue to evaluate and verify the accuracy of this preliminary determination.”

In past newsletters, I have argued that Commerce is a hanging judge in AD and CVD determinations finding dumping and subsidization in close to 100 percent of the cases. But in contrast to a China case, where Commerce uses fake numbers, in a market economy case against Canada, for example, Commerce is to use actual domestic prices and costs to determine dumping and actual government payments to determine subsidization in the case and actual commercial values in that country to value them. Thus, in counseling foreign companies in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, if they are in market economy countries, I tell them that they can use computer programs to run their numbers and make sure that they are not dumping. Also companies can usually figure out whether they have taken subsidies from the Government.

As indicated in the Article about the Bombardier/Civil Aircraft case below, however, although the AD and CVD rates were very high at 219% and 79%, Commerce did give reasoned decisions as to how it calculated those high rates.

NO SYMPATHY FOR BOMBARDIER IN BOEING FIGHT.

Just before the countervailing duty preliminary determination in the Civil Aircraft from Canada case, I was interviewed by BBC radio and by various investment companies asking me for my views on the case. During those interviews, I emphasized that the US countervailing duty and antidumping cases against Canada were legal proceedings and that the Commerce Department’s preliminary determinations were normal operating procedure pursuant to the US antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) law. The Commerce Department must follow the statutory requirements of the AD and CVD law, and these preliminary determinations were not political decisions. They were legal decisions made pursuant to the law and the statutory deadlines in those laws.

With all the political arguments from both the Canadian and UK Governments in the wind, during those interviews, however, I also suggested the case could result in a negotiated suspension government to government agreement, much like happened in the Canadian Lumber case. After the CVD preliminary determination, USTR Lighthizer also mentioned the possibility of a government to government negotiated deal in the Bombardier case.

But then Commerce issued a preliminary CVD rate of 219.63%. Immediately the Canadian government complained about the unfairness of the decision, and the UK government threatened a trade war with the US because Bombardier has a production plant in Northern Ireland.

Commerce issued the very high CVD rate as indicated in the attached Commerce Department’s Issue and Decision Memo, 2017.09.26 Aircraft Prelim I&D Memo, because of the massive equity infusion of $1 billion by the Quebec Government directly into Bombardier, making it in effect a state-owned company, much like the Chinese state-owned companies.

The entire purpose of the US CVD law and CVD laws in general is that private companies should not have to compete in commercial markets against the Government and that is just what has happened.

Although the argument is made that Boeing is financed by its military sale of airplanes to the US government, Boeing itself is a publicly traded company on the New York stock exchange and certainly has not received $1 billion in a direct equity infusion into the company by a Government to finance its production operations.

But then Bombardier seriously damaged its own chances for a negotiated government to government suspension agreement because Commerce issued an antidumping preliminary determination of 79.82% antidumping rate based on All Facts Available (“AFA”) because Bombardier refused to provide sales information regarding its contracts with Delta and Air Canada and cost information.

Essentially an AFA rate is a penalty for a respondent refusing to cooperate in the Commerce Department’s investigation. The Canadian Government would have reached an identical decision in the Antidumping Case if a a respondent refused to provide requested information in its questionnaire response. The EC takes the same position. If a respondent refuses to cooperate in EC antidumping and countervailing duty cases, the EC will use all facts available.

I firmly believe that because of the decision not to cooperate with Commerce, the Trump Administration will refuse to do a suspension agreement in this case. Commerce will not reward bad behavior in AD cases. A company cannot refuse to cooperate with Commerce and give them the information they need to make a decision and then expect Commerce to give it a political deal.

Also the UK threat of a trade war indicates an ignorance of how AD and CVD law works, which is understandable because all AD and CVD cases in the EC are handled in Brussels. As stated above, these preliminary determinations were legal determinations under the US AD and CVD law, which are based on the WTO Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Agreements and agreed to by all countries in the WTO, including Canada, the EC and through the EC, the UK.

Bombardier argued that it could not provide the sales information because the airplanes had not been exported to the US. As indicated in the attached AFA memo, ANTIDUMPING AFA BOMBARDIER, the US Antidumping Law, which is based on the WTO Antidumping Agreement, covers “sales” and in the absence of sales offers for sale. As the AFA Memo states:

Additionally, section 772 of the Act defines export price and constructed export price as the price at which merchandise under consideration is first sold or agreed to be sold. Moreover, 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act states that normal value is the price at which:

the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price or constructed export price.

In addition, as previously mentioned, under 19 CFR 351.102(b)(43), the term “sale” includes a contract to sell. Furthermore, a Ways and Means Committee report describes the reason for amending the countervailing duty law, along the lines of what already existed in the antidumping duty law, to make clear that the Department could initiate countervailing duty cases and render determinations in situations where actual importation had not yet occurred but a sale for importation had been completed or was imminent. The House Report explained that “{a}ntidumping law has, since its inception, applied not only to imports, but to sales or likely sales. This report additionally explained that the amendment (including the phrase “or sold (or likely to be sold) for importation” in section 701(a) of the Act) was “particularly important in cases involving large capital equipment, where loss of a single sale can cause immediate economic harm and where it may be impossible to offer meaningful relief if the investigation is not initiated until after importation takes place.” This logic described in the House Report is relevant in this antidumping duty investigation as well. For these reasons, the Department appropriately requested information related to Bombardier’s purchase contracts for merchandise under investigation in the United States and the home market.

According to Commerce, Bombardier only submitted arguments in response to sections B through D of the questionnaire. It did not provide the facts to support those arguments. Under US AD law, however, Commerce Department decisions and respondent’s arguments have to be based on the facts on the Administrative Record. When there are no facts, Commerce will use All Facts Available.

Through intermediaries, I have been told that Bombardier refused to release that information to Commerce because of fear it would be released to Boeing. If that is true, it reveals the failure of Bombardier’s outside lawyers to discuss how Commerce Department Administrative Protective Orders work in AD and CVD cases. Under US AD and CVD law, only outside counsel, not Boeing’s inside counsel, are granted access to Bombardier information and if those outside lawyers reveal that information to Boeing, they can be disbarred. Trade counsel in the US take very seriously the APO requirements under the US AD and CVD Law. In addition, Bombardier’s outside counsel has had access to Boeing’s confidential information under Administrative Protective at the US International Trade Commission so there is simply no sympathy for Bombardier’s arguments.

Finally, the latest news is that Bombardier is asking Airbus to take a majority share in its production of C Series Aircraft and Airbus will shift the production to Mobile, Alabama to get out of the case. Boeing has argued that Boeing’s move will not have an effect on the case because any orders issued will cover parts.

But that is not quite correct. The jurisdiction in AD and CVD cases is in rem over the things, products, being imported into the US. So the critical issue is how did Boeing describe the products to be covered by the case and that are in the Scope of the Merchandise Section in the Federal Register notice issued by the Commerce Department.

The Scope of the Merchandise Section in the Federal Register notice states that the AD and CVD orders will cover imports of:

“aircraft, regardless of seating configuration, that have a standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity and a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range, as these terms are defined below. . . .

The scope includes all aircraft covered by the description above, regardless of whether they enter the United States fully or partially assembled, and regardless of whether, at the time of entry into the United States, they are approved for use by the FAA.”

The scope does not include “parts thereof” language so the real question is whether Customs will consider any parts imported into the United States to be “partially assembled” civil aircraft.

The key point is that the desperate measure to joint venture with Airbus, however, means Bombardier has given up on a government to government Suspension Agreement to settle the case. I suspect Bombardier will have major problems going forward.

SECTION 201 SOLAR CELLS CASE

On May 17, 2017, Suniva filed a Section 201 Escape Clause against all Solar Cell imports from all countries at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”). On May 23, 2017, in the attached Federal Register notice, ITC iNITIATION NOTICE SOLAR CELLS, the ITC decided to go ahead and institute the case.

The ITC had to determine whether “crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles.”

The ITC reached an affirmative injury determination in the case on September 22, 2017, and now it has entered a remedy phase on which remedy to recommend to the President.

The Commission will issue its report to the President on November 13, 2017 and the President within 60 days must decide whether or not to impose import relief, which can be in the form of increased tariffs, quotas or an orderly marketing agreements.

Although the ITC remedy phase is important, the real remedy will be determined by President Donald Trump with the assistance of the USTR after November 13th.

On October 3, 2017, the ITC held a hearing in the remedy phase. The proposed remedies from the parties are:

The petitioners, Suniva and SolarWorld Americas, in their public briefs, proposed two remedies: a tariff plus a price floor for solar cells, or a tariff plus a quota. The two companies agree that the commission should choose one.

The Solar Energy Industries Association, the users coalition, along with solar producer SunPower, argued that a tariff will result in the loss of 62,800 jobs in 2018 and 80,000 jobs in later years. Tariffs will simply increase the price of panels, which will kill solar projects. SEIA in its brief also argued that if tariffs are imposed, the big winner will be Arizona-based thin-film manufacturer First Solar, which does much of its manufacturing in Malaysia.

At the hearing, Suniva and SolarWorld requested a 32-cent-per-watt tariff on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. Suniva continued to push for a price floor on solar panels of 74 cents per watt, while SolarWorld wants a quota on imported cells and panels to cap import supply; both support each other’s idea in the alternative. In its brief, Suniva stated:

“The crisis caused by foreign market overcapacity now facing the U.S. CSPV cell and module industry is so extreme, the financial losses so great, that, to be effective, any remedy … must be bold, extensive and multifaceted. [A] strong and effective remedy is required to stop the industry’s bleeding, and then provide breathing space for this American-invented manufacturing technology to grow and thrive.”

But SEIA, which maintains that such trade barriers will devastate the entire U.S. solar industry by raising prices and crippling demand, says the two manufacturers are failing for internal and not external reasons and have asked for more help than the government can grant. Since the ITC must recommend a remedy by mid-November with Trump then to decide within 60 days, SEIA offers these alternatives: technical assistance and job training assistance from government agencies, and an import licensing fee to fund manufacturing growth.

The interesting point is that Suniva and Solar World failed to submit an adjustment plan to the ITC to show, in direct contrast to Harley Davidson, how they will adjust to import competition if they are given relief.

SEIA argued in its brief:

“The commission should rely on its trade policy expertise to create and recommend constructive advice instead of resorting to trade restraints. Denying the existence of the tens of thousands of jobs that are at stake, denying the reality and importance of grid parity, and denying the domestic industry’s internal problems in favor of scapegoating imports will not help the industry or serve the national interest.”

TRUMP AND CHINA

But what about developments regarding trade with China, as indicated below new trade cases are being filed against China in the antidumping and countervailing duty area and for IP violations under Section 337.

During her speech mentioned above, Laura Ingraham argues that there is no remedy if imports come into the US that infringe US intellectual property rights. That simply is not true.

Under Section 337, 19 USC 1337, Petitioners holding valid IP rights can filed a Section 337 case at the US ITC and after a year long proceeding, the ITC will issue an order excluding the infringing imports at the border.

In addition, if the imports infringe US trademarks or copyrights, Petitioner can go directly to Customs, which will exclude the infringing exports at the border.

In addition, if Chinese exports infringe US intellectual property rights, such as trademarks and copyrights, a US company can go directly to Chinese Customs and stop the export of infringing exports.

But with China’s decision to help on North Korea, I suspect that during Trump’s visit to China in November deals will be reached. But as Charlene Barshefsky has indicated in her speech to the Wall Street Journal above, the real problem is China’s decision to close down areas to US investment and put up barriers to US imports.

In light of the US position in the NAFTA talks, we can expect the US to demand reciprocity. Trump and Congress may well take the position that we will close off the US market to the Chinese investment in the same areas where China blocks US investment in. The US should also consider closing off Chinese imports into sectors where the US cannot export into. That is reciprocity.

In the attached August 18th Federal Register notice based on an August 14th Presidential Memorandum, 301 INITIATION NOTICE, President Trump pulled the trigger on the Section 301 Intellection property case against China. The Section 301 investigation could take a year and probably will lead to negotiations with the Chinese government on technology transfer. If the negotiations fail, the US could take unilateral action, such as increasing tariffs, or pursue a case through the World Trade Organization. Unilateral actions under Section 301, however, also risk a WTO case against the United States in Geneva.

The notice states that the USTR will specifically investigate the following specific types of conduct:

First, the Chinese government reportedly uses a variety of tools, including opaque and discretionary administrative approval processes, joint venture requirements, foreign equity limitations, procurements, and other mechanisms to regulate or intervene in U.S. companies’ operations in China, in order to require or pressure the transfer of technologies and intellectual property to Chinese companies. Moreover, many U.S. companies report facing vague and unwritten rules, as well as local rules that diverge from national ones, which are applied in a selective and non-transparent manner by Chinese government officials to pressure technology transfer.

Second, the Chinese government’s acts, policies and practices reportedly deprive U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations with Chinese companies and undermine U.S. companies’ control over their technology in China. For example, the Regulations on Technology Import and Export Administration mandate particular terms for indemnities and ownership of technology improvements for imported technology, and other measures also impose non-market terms in licensing and technology contracts.

Fourth, the investigation will consider whether the Chinese government is conducting or supporting unauthorized intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks or cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or confidential business information, and whether this conduct harms U.S. companies or provides competitive advantages to Chinese companies or commercial sectors.

The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) held a hearing on October 10th at the International Trade Commission. During the October 10th hearing, only two US companies appeared to argue that their IP was stolen by Chinese government actions. Juergen Stein, CEO of SolarWorld Americas stated that his company was a victim of Chinese “state-sponsored hacking and theft” while it was pursuing his AD and CVD cases against China. Stein further stated that this “greatly weakened SolarWorld’s first-mover status, and again left SolarWorld vulnerable to China’s relentless effort to take over the U.S. solar industry through the sale of solar cells and panels below the cost of production,”

Just one other company, American Superconductor Corp., testified that it had been badly hurt by Chinese theft of its intellectual property. The company accused a Chinese state-owned enterprise, Sinovel Wind Group, of stealing its intellectual property. AMSC has lost over $1.6 billion in company value and 70 percent of its workforce over the past six years as a result, AMSC President Daniel Patrick McGahn said.

“We believe that over 8,000 wind turbines – most owned by large Chinese utility state-owned enterprises – currently are operating on stolen AMSC IP I personally believe such actions should have consequences. The negative impact of Sinovel’s IP theft on the financial health of AMSC has been dramatic.”

A third company, ABRO Industries, said it had learned to work within the Chinese intellectual property protection system to address problems when they arise. William Mansfield, director of intellectual property at ABRO, also urged the Trump administration to refrain from rash action, stating, “The time for gunboat diplomacy is long since past.”

Acting Assistant USTR for China Terry McCartin, commenting on the dearth of business witnesses, said some companies had expressed concern “about retaliation or other harm to their businesses in China if they were to speak out in this proceeding.”

But as indicated in an article by Dan Harris, the problem may be that US companies on their own gave away their IP because of bad business decisions. The US government cannot protect US companies from the consequences of bad business decisions. See August 30, 2017 article by Dan Harris entitled “China-US Trade Wars and the IP Elephant in the Room”, on his China law blog at http://www.chinalawblog.com/2017/08/china-us-trade-wars-and-the-ip-elephant-in-the-room.html.

CHINA NME STATUS

On the question of China’s nonmarket economy status in AD and CVD cases, in light to the expiration of the 15-year deadline in the China-WTO Agreement on December 16, 2016 and a Chinese case in the WTO, the EU on October 3rd reached agreement with the European Council and Parliament to overhaul its antidumping procedures. Pursuant to the Agreement, the EU will decide the issue on a case-by-case basis, leaving it up to the EU Government to determine whether a Chinese industry has demonstrated enough independent from the Chinese government.

In the announcement, the EU stated:

“The new legislation introduces a new methodology for calculating dumping margins for imports from third countries in case of significant market distortions, or a pervasive state’s influence on the economy. The rules are formulated in a country- neutral way and in full compliance with the EU’s WTO obligations.”

EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström further stated:

“Having a new methodology in place for calculating dumping on imports from countries which have significant distortions in their economies is essential to address the realities of today’s international trading environment. The commission has repeatedly stressed the importance of free but fair trade and the agreement today endorses that view.”

WINE FIGHT AGAINST BRITISH COLUMBIA AND CANADA

In the attached complaint filed by the United States against Canada on Wine, WTO WINE COMPLAINT, a case which is near and dear to my heart, on October 2, 2017 the Trump administration revived an Obama-era World Trade Organization case against Canadian rules that have allegedly kept U.S. wine off grocery store shelves in British Columbia, according to a WTO document circulated on Monday.

According to the US complaint:

“The BC wine measures provide advantages to BC wine through the granting of exclusive access to a retail channel of selling wine on grocery store shelves. The BC measures appear to discriminate on their face against imported wine by allowing only BC wine to be sold on regular grocery store shelves while imported wine may be sold in grocery stores only through a so-called store within a store.”

According to prior statements from the government and the industry backing the case, many retailers in Canada have not taken the necessary steps to set up their “store within a store” to sell foreign wine, likely because of the high costs associated with controlled access and separate cash registers.

According to the complaint:

“These measures appear to be inconsistent with Canada’s obligations … because they are laws, regulations or requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase or distribution of wine and fail to accord products imported into Canada treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of Canadian origin.”

In the following months, Argentina, Australia, the European Union and New Zealand all asked to join the case, according to the World Trade Organization website.

USTR asserts the provincial regulations discriminate against imported wine because they only allow wine from British Columbia to be sold on regular grocery store shelves. In contrast, imported wine may only be sold in the province’s grocery stores through a so-called store within a store.

“British Columbia’s discriminatory regulations continue to be a serious problem for U.S. winemakers,” USTR spokeswoman Amelia Breinig said. “USTR is requesting new consultations to ensure that we can reach a resolution that provides U.S. wine exporters fair and equal access in British Columbia.”

In fact, BC Wine regulations are probably the most protectionist in the World, worse than China requiring the equivalent of an 80% tariff to sell imported wine. BC protectionist measures on wine simply feed right into the Trump argument on NAFTA that it is not a free trade agreement.

SECTION 232 STEEL AND ALUMINUM CASES REMAIN STALLED

The Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases appear to have stalled for the time being. No news on the Section 232 front raises the question what can be done for US Steel and Aluminum companies injured by imports without distorting the US market and expanding the problems. Across the board tariffs on steel imports would create enormous collateral damage on the many US producers that use steel as a raw material input to produce downstream steel products. Such a remedy would probably result in the loss of 100s of thousands of US job.

That is the problem with purely protectionist decisions. They distort the US market and simply transfer the problems of the steel industry to other downstream industries.

But does that mean the US government should simply let the US Steel industry and other manufacturing industries die? The election of Donald Trump indicates that politically that simply is not a viable option.

Although Joseph Schumpeter in his book Capitalism, Socialism and Demcracy coined the term “creative destructionism”, which conservatives and libertarians love to quote, they do not acknowledge the real premise of Schumpeter’s book that capitalism by itself could not long survive. Schumpeter himself observed the collateral damage created by pure capitalism.

So what can be done for the steel and other manufacturing industries? Answer work with the companies on an individual basis to help them adjust to import competition and compete in the markets as they exist today. Moreover, there is already a government program, which can serve as a model to provide such a service—the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies Program.

What is the TAA for Companies secret sauce? Making US companies competitive again. Only by making US manufacturing companies competitive again will the trade problems really be solved. US industry needs stop wallowing in international trade victimhood and to cure its own ills first before always blaming the foreigners. That is exactly what TAA for Companies does—helps US companies cure their own ills first by making them competitive again.

As stated above, there is another more productive way to solve the Steel crisis and fix the trade problem and help US companies, including Steel and other companies, adjust to import competition. This program has a true track record of saving US companies injured by imports.

This was a problem personally approved by President Ronald Reagan. The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program does not put up barriers to imports. Instead the TAA for Companies program works with US companies injured by imports on an individual basis to make them more competitive. The objective of TAA for Companies is to save the company and by saving the company it saves the jobs that go with that company.

But as stated in the video below, for companies to succeed they must first give up the mentality of international trade victimhood.

In contrast to TAA for workers, TAAF or TAA for Companies is provided by the Economic Development Administration at the Commerce Department to help companies adjust to import competition before there is a massive lay-off or closure. Yet the program does not interfere in the market or restrict imports in any way.

Moreover, the Federal government saves money because if the company is saved, the jobs are saved and there are fewer workers to retrain and the saved company and workers end up paying taxes at all levels of government rather than being a drain on the Treasury. To retrain the worker for a new job, the average cost per job is $50,000. To save the company and the jobs that go with it in the TAA for Companies program, the average cost per job is $1,000.

Moreover, TAA for Firms/Companies works. In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.nwtaac.org/, has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.mataac.org, uses a video, http://mataac.org/howitworks/, to show in detail how the program resulted in significant turnarounds for four companies. The reason the TAA for Firms/Companies is so successful—Its flexibility in working with companies on an individual basis to come up with a specific adjustment plan to make them competitive once again in the US market as it exists today. For a sample recovery plan, see http://mataac.org/documents/2014/06/sample-adjustment-plan.pdf, which has been developed specific to the strengths, weaknesses and threats each company faces.

Are such paltry sums really going to help solve the manufacturing crisis in the Steel and other industries? Of course not!!

But when the program was originally set up, the budget was much larger at $50 to $100 million. If the program was funded to its full potential, yes steel companies and other companies could be saved.

To those libertarian conservatives that reject such a program as interference in the market, my response is that this program was personally approved by your icon, President Ronald Reagan. He understood that there was a price for free trade and avoiding protectionism and that is helping those companies injured by import competition. But teaching companies how to be competitive is a much bigger bang for the buck than simply retraining workers. And yes companies can learn and be competitive again in the US and other markets.

NEW TRADE CASES

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

PTFE RESIN

On September 28, 2017, the Chemours Company FC LLC filed AD and CVD cases against imports of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from China and India.

FORGED STEEL FITTINGS

On October 5, 2017, the Bonney Forge Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union filed AD and CVD cases against imports of Forged Steel Fittings from China Italy and Taiwan.

UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES

FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES

CHINESE ANTIDUMPING CASES AGAINST US AND JAPAN

HYDRIOC ACID FROM THE US and JAPAN

On October 16, 2917, China Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) published the attached initiation notice of antidumping investigation against Hydriodic Acid from the USA and Japan, Initiation Notice_Hydriodic Acid_EN. The alleged dumping margin on the US imports is 36.09% and Japanese imports is 41.18%

The Target companies in the US are: USA: Iofina Chemical, Inc.; IOCHEM Corporation and Ajay North America, LLC

On September 19, 2017, Cotton Babies, Inc filed a section 337 case against imports of Certain Reusable Diapers, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same. The respondent companies named in the complaint are:

On September 21, 2017, Philips Lighting North America Corp. and Philips Lighting Holding B.V. filed a section 337 case against imports of LED Lighting Devices and LED Power Supplies. The named respondents in the case are:

REUSABLE RAZORS
On September 27, 2017, The Gillette Company LLC filed a section 337 case against imports of Certain Shaving Cartridges, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same. The named respondents in the case are:

If you have any questions about these cases or about the Trump Trade Crisis, NAFTA, FTAs, , including the impact on agriculture, the impact on downstream industries, the Section 232 cases, the 201 case against Solar Cells, US trade policy, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, trade adjustment assistance, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law, please feel free to contact me.

This blog post is coming out very late because I have been very busy with so many trade cases being filed. In fact, this is the most trade cases I have seen in my lifetime filed in such a short period. Every day there seems to be another trade case.

For the last two weeks I have been intensely involved in an antidumping and countervailing duty case on mechanical tubing. We are representing auto parts companies, which have warned the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) if they go affirmative and find injury in the case, in all probability the companies will close their US operations and move offshore. The US producers bringing the petition want to force auto parts companies to buy their commodity mechanical tubing, which is sold to the oil & gas industry and goes down a hole. The auto industry needs made to order mechanical tubing as their raw material because of the advanced designs and safety requirements in the United States.

If the United States is going to block raw materials, US downstream industries will have no choice. They will move offshore to obtain the high quality raw materials they need to not only be competitive but also produce high quality safe auto parts. In this first article below, one can read directly the public statements of these auto parts producers to the ITC.

Meanwhile, Trump is increasing the trade war. Throughout the Presidential campaign, Trump threatened to put tariffs on many different products. With Commerce Department Secretary Wilbur Ross, President Trump has discovered Section 232 National Security cases against Steel and Aluminum. There are no checks on the President’s power in Section 232 cases. No check at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the Courts or the WTO. Once the Commerce Department issues a report, then Trump has the power to impose tariffs or other remedies.

If you look at the link to the Commerce Department hearing in the Section 232 Steel case, at the end of the hearing you will hear numerous downstream companies telling Commerce to exclude their products and if they cannot get the imported steel, their companies will close.

Meanwhile, numerous antidumping and countervailing duty cases have been filed against aluminum foil, tool chests, biodiesel, tooling and aircraft just to name a few. As described below, Trump has found his Trade War, but the real victim in this trade war may be US downstream industries.

In addition to two Section 232 cases, Suniva has filed a Section 201 case against imports of solar cells from every country. The main targets appear to be third world countries where Chinese companies have moved their production facilities and Canada and Mexico. The ironic point of this filing is that Solar World, the company that brought the original Solar Cells and Solar products cases against China, has now become insolvent and just today announced that it is supporting the petition. Companies that were buying solar cells from Solar World all of a sudden cannot get the solar cells they paid for because of the insolvency.

Maybe this is why Trade Adjustment Assistance to Companies is so important. With TAA, Solar World might have been saved with no damage to the US Polysilicon industry. But despite the fact that section 201 requires US companies to submit adjustment plans and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers are the real trade adjustment experts, President Trump has zeroed out the Trade Adjustment Centers in his budget. Apparently all President Trump wants to do is to put up protectionist walls to protect US companies and industries, rather than make them more competitive. Very short sighted.

On the Trade Policy side, with protectionist walls appear to be going up. Lighthizer was just confirmed as USTR and immediately plunged into NAFTA negotiations. USTR Lighthizer has pledged to protect agriculture in the negotiations.

The only good news is that when Trump released his Tax Plan, border adjustment taxes were not part of the proposal. But in a recent hearing before the House Ways and Means, one could tell Congressmen are split, but Republicans want border adjustment taxes. On May 23rd, however, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin told House Democrats on Ways and Means that he and President Trump are opposed to the Border Adjustment tax.

One interesting note is that Trump’s proposal to cut corporate taxes to 15% has China scared. Chinese companies could move to the US to set up production

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRUMP’S TRADE WAR

With the number of trade cases being filed, including the Section 232 cases against Steel and Aluminum, which give President Trump carte blanche authority to issue tariffs and other import restrictions, the President truly is creating a trade war. Trump’s threat to kill NAFTA scared Canada and Mexico to come to the table. One of the reasons for Trump’s threat is the Canadian threat not to drop its barriers to US dairy exports.

One Canadian Parliament member threatened President Trump not to get so tough on trade. The member should understand that such threats play right into the hands of Donald Trump and his argument that NAFTA is not truly a free trade agreement.

But all these threats and trade cases will make it very difficult to conclude trade agreements. In looking at Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s plan to get to 3% GDP increase, one pillar of the plan is increased exports. Exports, however, will not increase if there is a trade war, and it sure looks like that is going to happen.

From January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2017, the GDP was an anemic 0.7%. Trump has to change that dramatically and deciding to have a trade war with every country is not the way to change the GDP number.

In fact, all these trade cases could be the Achilles heal of Trump’s Economic policy. Trump’s carrots to encourage domestic industry, including lowering taxes and cutting regulations, are not the issue. Protectionist walls to try and protect raw material industries, however, will have an opposite effect because of the collateral damage these orders will have on US downstream producers, which use these raw material inputs. As Ronald Reagan stated, “Protectionism becomes destructionism; it costs jobs.” But protectionism is not a partisan issue, as the only one more protectionist than President Trump may be the Democratic party.

To understand the real impact of the Trump Steel War on downstream industries, including the US auto parts and automobile industries, read the quotes below. The Automobile Industry is going to be hit hard.

Cold-drawn mechanical tubing can be sold as a commodity product to be used in the oil & gas, mining, agricultural and construction industries. Certain types of mechanical tubing are also sold as commodity products to the auto industry to produce axles and drive shafts, but there is another segment of the auto parts industry, which produces specialized automotive products. Because of US safety requirements, the specialized auto products companies need made to order mechanical tubing. They cannot simply buy mechanical tubing off the shelf. Petitioners, however, want the auto parts companies to buy their commodity products.

In order to win the antidumping and the countervailing duty case, Petitioners must establish dumping and subsidization at the Commerce Department and injury to the U.S. industry at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”). Once the petition was filed, the ITC immediately started up its 45 day preliminary injury investigation. On May 10, 2017, the ITC held a hearing in Washington DC in the preliminary investigation and then we submitted a post-conference brief.

We represent in the case importers and two US auto parts companies. The importers, including these specialized auto parts companies, are very worried because the Commerce Department preliminary determinations, which will be issued very soon on September 16, 2017 (“CVD)” and November 15, 2017 (“AD”), are when their liability begins. With the Trump Administration and the Commerce Department’s war on steel imports, the duties are expected to be very high. This is especially true with regard to China since Commerce does not use actual Chinese prices and costs to determine dumping. Like many downstream customers in US AD and CVD cases, the customers are telling the ITC that they may have to close production and move offshore to get access to the higher quality competitive raw steel products. Our hope is that the ITC will listen to these arguments, but to date the ITC has ignored them. End users do not have standing in AD and CVD cases at the ITC.

As stated in our ITC postconference brief:

“The Petitioners/US mechanical tubing industry in this case will recover as their commodity markets in the energy, agricultural, mining and machinery markets recover. But since antidumping and countervailing duty orders stay in place for 5 to 30 years, the impact of this case on the US downstream auto part and automobile industries will last for many years.

If the Commission goes affirmative in this case, we will see many auto parts producers close shop and move to another country where they can buy the high quality mechanical tubing that they need to compete with the loss of thousands of US jobs. Many of these companies, including voestalpline Rotec Inc., already have operations in Canada, Mexico and through their parent company in numerous other countries and they will move their operations to obtain the high quality raw materials that they need to safely compete in the downstream auto parts market.”

As Andrew Ball, President, of voestalpine Rotec in Lafayette, Indiana stated at the Preliminary Conference:

“Our customers will not allow a change in the supply base, and this material is absolutely not available from these U.S. producers, thus making the decision to move equipment to other countries or procuring the completed components from our other global facilities in Austria, the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Poland a likely outcome.

With so much discussion surrounding trade imbalance, it is ironic that because of this case, we as a U.S. manufacturer will be forced to relocate millions of dollars of manufacturing equipment with significant loss of U.S. jobs for specialty high value, highly engineered components because several commodity U.S. producers are determined to ignore market realities.

I can say with a high degree of certainty that none of the petitioners will see one extra pound, not one single foot of material as a result of this action. I am certain, however, that companies like ours and our customers will accelerate the relocation of domestic manufacturing to other countries, and all this business will flow in NAFTA region as semi-finished components, thus avoiding the dumping duty altogether. . . .

I simply cannot ignore the reality that the automotive industry waits for no one and for nothing. To highlight this point, in 2013 our facility took a direct hit from an F-3 tornado, obliterating 30 percent of our manufacturing capacity. Within 48 hours, we had the rest of the facility fully operational and with the help of our international partners and domestic competition, we had the balance of our business sourced and supplying parts to assembly facilities throughout the world within four days. Not one single production line was affected as a result. . . .

That was a natural disaster. This one is man-made, and I can assure you that in 45 days if this case is not dismissed, these actions will accelerate the market forces already working against our U.S. manufacturing base and will either force our hand or the hand of our customers to move business overseas in many places closer to the customer locations in Mexico, to ensure the continuity of cost, quality and service, resulting in the loss of precious U.S. manufacturing jobs, future investment and all but killing the chances of fixing the trade imbalance.”

As Andrew Ball further stated in the ITC Postconference brief:

“This petition puts at risk our factory, our jobs and the factories and jobs of our US customers and subcontractors. Increases to prices that are already considered high in the global market will result in our customers resourcing our business to other suppliers or will force them to insist that we move equipment to other locations in the world to avoid this unjustified action. I was always raised that before I ask for help it was expected that I had done everything I could to help myself. Why then have none of the petitioners made sales calls to my organization looking to reform or start a partnership ahead of this action? Unfortunately, if you vote affirmative, resource decisions will be taken well ahead of the final DOC determination for risk mitigation purposes. I trust that you will analyze all details in this case and make your determination based on clear “facts and data.”

Another auto parts company stated in the brief:

We have fixed contracts with our vendors and customers, so any increase in piece price will be countered by evaluating the region that we manufacture products in or may require that we look at bringing in the components from other countries. If your vote is affirmative then we will be making these decisions ahead of the determination by the DOC in September as the risk is too high to wait.

If these auto parts component companies do not move, their customers, the auto parts producers, which are multi-nationals, will move because auto parts companies cannot buy commodity products when safety issues are a concern. Product Liability cases can bankrupt an auto parts producer.

In her statement at the Preliminary Conference, Julie Ellis, President of Tube Fabrication of Logansport, Indiana echoed Andrew Ball’s statement:

The impact of this case on downstream manufacturing operations will result in the loss of thousands of jobs, maybe even more jobs than those saved by the case. If we are unable to provide our customers with tube components at a competitive global price, they will be forced to move production from the United States to other countries.

Most of our customers already have global operations in place and have the ability to divert the production away from the U.S. locations to remain competitive. The loss of business would not only impact businesses like TFI, but coating facilities, plating operations, heat treating, tool and die shops, machine shops, testing facilities, transportation companies, along with our customers’ U.S. facilities, and further downstream manufacturing.

In other words, in response to this petition, we fear that U.S. automotive companies will simply shift and procure the final parts with the tubes in them from multiple overseas operations. From our point of view, this case will not result in any more tubes being switched to U.S. producers. Instead, it will simply be a lose-lose situation.

TFI is representative of many U.S. producers at a comparable level of U.S. production. The inability of Tube Fabrication and other companies in similar situations to remain competitive will result in a tremendous loss of jobs in the U.S. downstream manufacturing sector. We will be forced to either move portions of our operations to Mexico, where we currently ship 20 percent of the components that we manufacture in the United States and/or cut USW jobs and benefits.

In her statement attached to the Brief, Julie Ellis states:

This is a rural community with limited manufacturing operations. We are an asset to the local economy, pay our taxes and provide community support. Thru the years we have watched as many of the local manufacturing companies have closed up operations and moved to Mexico and overseas. The inability of Tube Fabrication and other companies in similar situations, to remain competitive, could result in a tremendous loss of jobs in the downstream US manufacturing sector. It could potentially equate to thousands of people being displaced. We must have the ability to procure our raw materials at a competitive global price or we will lose business! As I said in my statement at the hearing, 20% of the components that we manufacture ship to Mexico. Please don’t force us to be the next ones to go!

Petitioners argue that respondents are simply exaggerating the problem and that the issue is simply dumped low import prices. But in this case, the issue is not just price; it is quality. As one importer, Salem Steel, stated at the Preliminary Conference, the same scenario played out as a result of the Section 201 Steel case, where many steel products were shut out of the US market:

“This scenario has happened before. One widely quoted study by Dr. Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman of Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC showed that as a result of Section 201 investigation brought at the behest of the U.S. steel industry, 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices in 2002.

More Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices in 2002 than the total number employed by the entire steel industry itself in the U.S. Every U.S. state experienced employment losses from higher steel costs, with the highest losses occurring in California, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York and Florida.”

In the attached Trade Partnership article, STEEL USERS ARTICLE1, Dr. Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman state at page 1 and 2 of their article that as a result of the Section 201 trade restrictions on steel:

“200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002. These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from February to November 2002.

One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and parts sectors.

Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000 jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.

More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500 Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).

Steel tariffs caused shortages of imported product and put U.S. manufacturers of steel-containing products at a disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors. In the absence of the tariffs, the damage to steel consuming employment would have been significantly less than it was in 2002.

The analysis shows that American steel consumers have borne heavy costs from higher steel prices caused by shortages, tariffs and trade remedy duties, among other factors. Some customers of steel consumers have moved sourcing offshore as U.S. producers of steel-containing products became less reliable and more expensive. Other customers refused to accept higher prices from their suppliers and forced them to absorb the higher steel costs, which put many in a precarious (or worse) financial condition. The impact on steel-consuming industries has been significant.”

But the remedy in the Section 201 case lasts from three to five years and in the Section 201 Steel case, President Bush lifted the restraints on Steel imports sooner because of the very damaging impact on downstream users. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty orders stay in place for five to thirty years.

The experience of downstream users in the Mechanical Tubing case reflects the experience of many downstream users in steel cases, such as the recent AD and CVD cases against Carbon Steel Wire Rod. There are real costs that will be borne by US downstream companies and their employees because of this Mechanical Tubing trade case and any AD and CVD orders that are issued. The Commission should have learned the same lesson from its AD order on Magnesium from China, which has been in place for more than ten years. This AD Order protects a one company US industry in Utah, but it has led to the demise of the entire US Magnesium dye casting industry and the movement of many light weight auto parts companies to Canada. But since downstream industries have no standing in an AD and CVD cases and there is no part of the injury provision to take this collateral damage into account, although downstream industries can testify at the ITC, in fact, they have no voice.

As Andrew Ball of voestalpine Rotec stated at the Preliminary Conference, ”I simply cannot ignore the reality that the automotive industry waits for no one and for nothing.” With Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders staying in place for 5 to 30 years, if the Commission does not look at market realities, many, many US auto parts companies will close down and move to a third countries. The real result of this Mechanical Tubing case brought by the Petitioners could well be to hollow out the US auto parts industry and lead to the destruction of the Petitioners’ US customers.

This is the real cost of the Trump trade war—thousands of jobs lost in downstream industries.

SECTION 232 INVESTIGATIONS — STEEL AND ALUMINUM

In response to pressure from President Trump, Commerce Secretary Ross has self-initiated National Security cases under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 19 U.S.C. 1862, against imports of steel and aluminum, which go directly into downstream US production. The danger of these cases is that there is no check on Presidential power if the Commerce Department finds that steel or aluminum “is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, the Secretary shall so advise the President”. The Secretary shall also advise the President on potential remedies.

If the Secretary reports affirmatively, the President has 90 days to determine whether it concurs with the Secretary’s determination and “determine the nature and duration of the action that, in the judgment of the President, must be taken to adjust the imports of the article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.”

Once the President makes his affirmative determination, he will report his decision to Congress. According to the Statute, on Petroleum and Petroleum products, the Congress can disapprove the decision, but there is no reference to Steel or Aluminum so it is questionable whether Congress can overrule the President in these cases. The statute also does not provide for any appeal to the Court of International Trade. Commerce also is very protectionist and in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, the only check is the injury determination by the independent US International Trade Commission. There is no such determination under Section 232.

Moreover, in these Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases, it is questionable how much weight Commerce will give to comments or testimony by downstream raw material users. This is dangerous because tariffs on steel products may cause real harm to the downstream automobile industry, which is important for National Security too.

At the hearing, Secretary Ross stated that a written report would go to the President by the end of June.

At the end of the hearing, several downstream users asked Commerce to exclude certain steel products from any remedy in the Section 232 case. Counsel for the Steel Importers warned Commerce about retaliation against US exports of military products, including airplanes and agriculture products.

At the start of the hearing, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said something has to be done to help the Steel producers. In the past Secretary Ross has stated that the Section 232 case is meant to fill the gaps created by the patchwork of antidumping and countervailing duties on foreign steel, which he said have provided only limited relief to the U.S. industry:

“It’s a fairly porous system and while it has accomplished some fair measure of reduction, it doesn’t solve the whole problem. So we are groping here to see whether the facts warrant a more comprehensive solution that would deal with a very wide range of steel products and a very wide range of countries.”

At the Trump Press Conference, Ross stated:

I am proud to stand here today and say that, under your leadership, we are restoring the primacy of American national security, American workers, and American businesses.

For years, we have simply reacted to over 150 cases of improper imports of foreign steel into this country. With our investigation launched last night, the federal government will finally become proactive.

This investigation will help ensure steel import issues do not make us less safe in a world that is increasingly fraught with geopolitical tensions.

The sheer volume of steel trade cases makes it clear that global steel overcapacity has an impact on our economy, but for the first time we will examine its impact on our national security.

We will conduct this investigation thoroughly and expeditiously so that we can fully enforce our trade laws and defend this country against those who would do us harm.

I look forward to the completion of this investigation so that I can report not just the findings, but also any concrete solutions that we may deem appropriate.

Under section 232 the Commerce Department will determine whether steel imports “threaten to impair” national security. Commerce must issue its findings to the White House within 270 days, along with recommendations on what steps to take.

But Ross said that the investigation may move along a quicker track, citing the abundance of steel data the U.S. already has on hand from its past investigations as well as a memorandum from President Donald Trump that calls for the agency to expedite the process. In fact, at the hearing, Secretary Ross stated that a report to the President will be issued by the end of June.

Once Commerce’s review is completed, the president has 90 days to decide whether to accept or reject its recommendations. The statute gives the administration wide latitude to act, including raising tariffs

Secretary Ross further stated in the past:

“We will conduct this investigation thoroughly and expeditiously so that, if necessary, we can take actions to defend American national security, workers, and businesses against foreign threats. This investigation will help determine whether steel import issues are making us less safe in a world that is increasingly fraught with geopolitical tensions.”

While the use of Section 232 is rare, the actual deployment of tariffs under the 1962 law is even rarer. Commerce last conducted a Section 232 probe of iron and steel in 2001, but ultimately decided that the goods posed no national security threat, and no further action was taken.

The last time an administration forged ahead with import relief under the law was 1975, when President Gerald Ford hiked license fees and other charges on shipments of imported petroleum during the throes of the mid-70s oil crisis. President Richard Nixon also used Section 232 to impose an across-the-board 10 percent surcharge program in 1971.

But with the new protectionist outlook of the Trump Administration, the huge steel overcapacity in China, and the fact that there are no checks under section 232, this action could definitely result in tariffs, quotas and other trade remedies.

ALUMINUM

On April 27, 2017, President Trump and the US Commerce Department self-initiated a Section 232 National Security case against imports of aluminum from all countries. Attached are documents related to the Case, ALUMINUM FED REG PUB, Aluminum Presidential Memo Summary. The hearing will be June 22, 2017 at the Commerce Department. The Presidential Memorandum issued on April 27th provides:

This Presidential Memorandum (PM) directs the Secretary of Commerce to investigate, in accordance with the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the effects on national security of aluminum imports.

During this investigation, the Secretary will consider the following:

The domestic production of aluminum needed for projected national defense requirements.

The capacity of domestic industries to meet such requirements.

The existing and anticipated availabilities of the human resources, products, raw materials, and other supplies and services essential to the national defense.

Recognize the close relation of the Nation’s economic welfare to our national security, and consider the effect of foreign competition in the aluminum industry on the economic welfare of domestic industries.

Consider any substantial unemployment, decrease in government revenues, loss of skills or investment, or other serious effects resulting from the displacement of any domestic products by excessive aluminum imports.

The Secretary shall conduct this investigation with speed and efficiency in order to find if aluminum is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.

If the above is deemed true, the Secretary shall recommend actions and steps that should be taken to adjust aluminum imports so that they will not threaten to impair the national security.

Although Secretary Ross wants to expedite the case, there are rumors that many investigators and other staff in Import Administration have now been moved to work on the Section 232 cases. With an enormous number of antidumping and countervailing duty cases along with two large Section 232 cases, Commerce staff will be stretched very thin.

SOLAR AD AND CVD CASES DID NOT WORK SO LET’S TRY A SECTION 201 ESCAPE CLAUSE CASE

Just recently, Solar World, the company that brought the Solar Cells and Solar Products antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China, announced that it was going into insolvency. The bottom line is that the antidumping and countervailing duty orders against solar cells and solar products from China did not save Solar World, but they did result in substantial damage to the upstream US Polysilicon industry. Because of the US action, China brought its own antidumping and countervailing duty case against $2 billion in US Polysilicon exported to China. REC Silicon in Moses Lake, Washington got hit with a 57% antidumping duty, deferred a $1 billion investment into Moses Lake, and in November 2016 laid off 70 workers in Moses Lake and cut their capacity in half.

On May 17, 2017, Suniva filed a Section 201 Escape Clause against all Solar Cell imports from all countries at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”). On May 23, 2017, in the attached Federal Register notice, ITC iNITIATION NOTICE SOLAR CELLS, the ITC decided to go ahead and institute the case. If the ITC reaches an affirmative determination, within 60 days the President must decide whether or not to impose import relief, which can be in the form of increased tariffs, quotas or an orderly marketing agreements.

By the way, in its determination to the President the ITC is to report any assistance given companies under the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies program, the only government program that truly saves US companies. President Trump, however, in his recent budget proposal completely zeroed out the TAA for Companies program. More about this below. Directly contrary to President Reagan, President Trump does not want to make US companies more competitive so that they can compete; he wants to put up protectionist walls.

The main targets of the Petition are not imports from China, but imports from third countries. In response to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, many Chinese companies moved to third countries and set up production there.

SCOPE OF THE 201 INVESTIGATION

The articles covered by this investigation are CSPV cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, and building-integrated materials.

The investigation covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of a thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction (or variant thereof) formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.

Included in the scope of the investigation are photovoltaic cells that contain crystalline silicon in addition to other photovoltaic materials. This includes, but is not limited to, passivated emitter rear contact (“PERC”) cells, heterojunction with intrinsic thin-layer (“HIIT”) cells, and other so-called “hybrid” cells.

Excluded from the investigation are CSPV cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, if the CSPV cells were manufactured in the United States.

Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000mm in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell. Where more than one cell is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all cells that are integrated into the consumer good.

SECTION 201 PROCEDURES IN SOLAR CELL CASE

At the ITC, Section 201 cases are a two stage process. The ITC must first determine whether “crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles.” The ITC has determined that the investigation is “extraordinarily complicated” and will make its injury determination within 128 days after the petition was filed, or by September 22, 2017. The Commission will submit to the President the report required under section 202(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 2252(f)(1)) within 180 days after the date on which the petition was filed, or by November 13, 2017.

Notices of appearance at the ITC are due in about three weeks from now or 21 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register. During the injury phase of the investigation, the ITC will hold an injury hearing on August 15, 2017. Prehearing briefs are due at the ITC on August 8, 2017. Posthearing briefs will be due at the ITC on August 22nd.

If the ITC reaches an affirmative determination, it will go into a remedy phase and the hearing in that phase will be on October 3, 2017.

REASONS FOR SECTION 201 PETITION

According to Suniva in its petition, the problem is not China. Suniva argues that the antidumping and countervailing duty orders in the Solar Cells and Solar Products case were simply evaded:

“as the impacted producers have simply opened significant capacity in third countries not subject to those AD/CVD orders. One of the underlying principles of those prior Title VII cases was that implementing duties against the subject goods originating from the offending countries would­ create a cost basis that generates greater domestic price equity. Unfortunately, that outcome has not occurred. Rather than invest in U.S. manufacturing or charge fair market prices, Chinese and Taiwanese manufacturers, either directly through the establishment of their own facilities, or indirectly through the support of contract manufacturing operations in Southeast Asia, India, and Eastern Europe, created alternative capacity that was not subject to U.S. tariffs. In fact, the data in this petition shows a direct correlation between:

The institution of tariffs against subject goods made in China or Taiwan;

The reduction of imports into the United States from those countries; and

The increase in imports from Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and other third countries.”

The Petition also states:

“What is striking is that even with these relatively high duties against two of the world’ s largest CSPV cell and module countries, imports continue to flood into the United States. Also striking is the quantity of Chinese and Taiwanese product that continues to enter the United States -, despite these dumping and subsidy duties. What these AD/CVD cases have also done is push production into new countries – meaning that they have led to increased global production and capacity. Consider:

In a March 21, 2017, article in the Financial Post, it was reported about Canadian Solar that :”The company said it has also increased production from its manufacturing facilities in Southeast Asia and Taiwan to serve the U.S. market and avoid import “

In a January 10, 2017, article in Taiyang News, the following is stated about Chinese producer Solar Trina: “Trina Solar has begun production of solar panels at its newly opened Vietnam factory. The facility with capacity of 800 MW annually is located in Quang Chau Industrial Park in Viet Yen district, northern Ban Giang province, reported The Voice of Vietnam.” The article continues: “After Malaysia, Vietnam is now coming up as one of the most sought after locations for Chinese solar power companies to set up their manufacturing units. Some of the biggest names, including Trina Solar, Jinko Solar and the like have voluntarily withdrawn from the European Commission’s minimum import price (MIP) undertaking which slaps anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties ori solar panels produced in China. Most of them are keen to operate from locations beyond China to be able to circumvent these duties and even more the customs in the much larger US solar market.”

In a March 29, 2016, article in PY Magazine, it is reported that “Trina Solar reports that it has begun production at its PY cell and module factory in Rayong Thailand, which has the capacity to produce 700 MW of cells and 500 MW of PY modules annually.” It continues “Southeast Asia has become a major destination for Chinese and Taiwanese PY cell and module makers seeking to avoid U.S. and EU import duties on their “

In an October 26, 2015, press release, it is announced that Chinese producer JA Solar Holdings, , Ltd. opened a 400MW cell manufacturing facility in Penang, Malaysia. As stated in the release: “These cells will primarily be used to manufacture JS Solar Modules outside of China to provide competitive product solutions to certain overseas markets.”

In an October 6, 2016, PV Magazine article, it was noted that JA Solar further expanded its Malaysian operations. The article further notes: “The expansion comes in the face of falling module prices around the world, as an oversupply seems to be taking hold of the “

In a July 24, 2016, CLEANTECHIES article, it is reported that JA Solar is planning a $1 billion dollar module factory in Vietnam. As noted in the article: “The company already operates 8 factories across the {sic} Europe, the US and Japan. JA Solar, like several other·module manufacturers, facing import restrictions and duties in developed markets like the US and Chinese {sic}. Several Chinese and Taiwanese companies have opened factories in overseas locations-to bypass these restrictions.”

A January 25, 2016, China Daily article discusses Chinese panel producers moving operations to Thailand because “solar panels made in the kingdom do not invite heavy duties in the US and Europe.”.

In short, an unforeseen development of the antidumping and countervailing duty cases . . . has been the proliferation of CSPV cell and module manufacturing across the globe. This further supports the use of this global safeguard action. Without global relief, the domestic industry will be playing “whack-a-mole” against CSPV cells and modules from particular countries.

In short, imports have clearly “increased” within the meaning of the statute. Indeed, the increase has been massive; and the recent surge has been highly debilitating to the market structure. The way that the world’s largest producers have reacted to antidumping and countervailing duty claims demonstrates that global relief is required.”

The petition also shows enormous increases of solar cells from Mexico and Canada and with regards to Canada states as follows:

“Transshipment of Chinese-origin CSPV cells through Canada would explain the rapid growth in imports of CSPV cells and modules from Canada in recent years.”

The Petition also states:

“Further, the U.S. industry could not have foreseen that foreign producers, in response to [the antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China would move so rapidly and drastically to open new production facilities in third-countries resulting in no relief for the U.S. industry from the application of the orders in the antidumping and countervailing duty cases. As shown by the import data presented in Exhibit 7, the surge in imports from third-countries after the imposition of the AD and CVD orders is completely unprecedented and unforeseeable. For example, between 2014 and 2016, imports from Malaysia surged 67 percent/while overtaking China as the largest source of imports. In addition, imports from Korea surged by 827 percent while increasing to become the third largest source of imports. Imports from Mexico, now the fourth largest source of imports, surged 77 percent. Imports from Thailand, now the fifth largest source of imports, surged over 76,000 percent. Such a rapid and significant increase in imports from third-countries is an unprecedented and completely unforeseen development.”

Between the time the Petition was filed and the ITC institution of the case, Wuxi Suntech announced it opposition to the petition because the law firm that had represented Wuxi Suntech in the antidumping and countervailing duty case against China brought the Section 201 case on behalf of Suniva. In addition, Sunrun, an importer and user of solar cells, entered a notice of appearance to point out that Solarworld does not support the petition and that Suniva represents less than 20% of US production, but the ITC went forward anyways. Just today, however, Solar World announced that it is supporting Suniva’s Section 201 Petition.

NEW TRADE CASES

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

TOOL CHESTS FROM CHINA AND VIETNAM

On April 11, 2017, Waterloo Industries Inc. filed major Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases against hundreds of millions of dollars of imports of certain tool chests and cabinets from China and Vietnam.

US importers’ liability for countervailing duties on imports from China will start on September 8, 2017, 150 days after the petition was filed, and for Antidumping Duties from China and Vietnam will start on November 7, 2017, 210 days after the petition was filed.

The entire investigation will take one year and antidumping and countervailing duty orders can last for 5 to 30 years.

If anyone wants a copy of the relevant parts of the AD and CVD complaints along with a list of the targeted Chinese exporters/producers and US importers, please feel free to contact me.

The cold-drawn mechanical tubing covered by the complaint is used to produce numerous different products in the United States, including auto parts and machinery.

As stated above, these trade cases move very quickly and many importers are blindsided because of the speed of the investigations. In the Mechanical Tubing case, the ITC conducted its preliminary injury hearing on May 10, 2017 and briefs were filed soon after. US importers’ liability for countervailing duties on imports from China and India will start on September 16, 2017, 150 days after the petition was filed, and for Antidumping Duties will start on November 15, 2017, 210 days after the petition was filed.

Commerce has already issued quantity and value questionnaires to the Chinese producers in the AD and CVD cases with responses for both cases due June 5th.

The entire investigation will take one year and antidumping and countervailing duty orders can last for 5 to 30 years.

On April 27, 2017, in the attached notice, AIRCRAFT, the Boeing Company filed an antidumping and countervailing duty case against 100 to 150 Seat Civil Aircraft from Canada. The Canadian respondent company is Bombardier. With all extensions, the Commerce Department’s Preliminary determination in the CVD case, which is when liability begins, is due September 24, 2017 and the Commerce Department’s preliminary AD determination, when liability begins, is due November 23, 2017.

With a sympathetic Trump Administration in power, there will be a sharp rise in AD and CVD cases against China and other countries.

LIGHTHIZER CONFIRMED—NAFTA FIGHT

On May 11, 2017, Robert Lighthizer was confirmed by the Senate as the next USTR. On May 15th he was sworn into office by Vice President Pence.

With Senators and Congressmen, especially from agricultural states, calling for new trade agreements, USTR will have a lot of work to do.

NAFTA FIGHT

On May 18, 2017, in the attached letter, nafta NOTIFICATION, USTR Lighthizer informed Congress of the President’s intention to renegotiate NAFTA. In the letter, Lighthizer specifically stated:

In particular, we note that NAFTA was negotiated 25 years ago, and while our economy and businesses have changed considerably over that period, NAFTA has not. Many chapters are outdated and do not reflect modern standards. For example, digital trade was in its infancy when NAFTA was enacted. In addition, and consistent with the negotiating objectives in the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act, our aim is that NAFTA be modernized to include new provisions to address intellectual property rights, regulatory practices, state-owned enterprises, services, customs procedures, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, labor, environment, and small and medium enterprises. Moreover, establishing effective implementation and aggressive enforcement of the commitments made by our trading partners under our trade agreements is vital to the success of those agreements and should be improved in the context of NAFTA. . . .

We are committed to concluding these negotiations with timely and substantive results for U.S. consumers, businesses, farmers, ranchers, and workers, consistent with U.S. priorities and the negotiating objectives established by the Congress in statute. We look forward to continuing to work with the Congress as negotiations with the NAFTA countries begin, and we commit to working with you closely and transparently throughout the process.

On May 18, 2017, John Brinkley published an article in response to the Lighthizer letter:

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seems to be trying to inject some rationality into President Trump’s trade policies. With the White House in turmoil over the Russia investigation and FBI Director James Comey’s firing, he might just get by with it.

Lighthizer on Thursday formally notified Congress of the administration’s intention to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico. The notification started the clock ticking on the 90-day period that has to elapse before the renegotiations can start.

In a letter to congressional leaders, Lighthizer made some surprisingly sensible remarks about what needed to be done – surprising because it included none of the bluster and hostility that President Trump has directed at America’s NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico.

All that is true. NAFTA doesn’t address digital trade, because it didn’t exist in 1993 when the deal was signed, but it now dominates every aspect of international commerce in goods and services.

Workers’ rights and environmental protection are addressed in side agreements that aren’t enforceable. Making those standards tougher fully enforceable would lessen the incentive for US companies to move to Mexico.

The letter also said trade rule enforcement “should be improved in the context of NAFTA.” It’s hard to imagine how that might happen. NAFTA allows a private company from one of the three countries that has operations in one of the others to file a complaint with the NAFTA secretariat against the host country if the company believes its rights have been violated. This Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) chapter allows for a hearing before a three-judge arbitration panel. Since 1994, the United States has prevailed in every NAFTA ISDS complaint that it has filed or has been filed against it and that has proceeded to a final ruling. It’s going to be hard to improve on that.

When two governments go head-to-head in a trade dispute, they usually take it to the World Trade Organization. The trend there is that the complaining government almost always wins. The U.S. has won 91% of the cases it has filed in the WTO and lost 84% of those filed against it. Its overall batting average is just over .500. There is nothing that can be done in NAFTA to affect that.

Maybe the best thing the administration could do for American businesses when it convenes the renegotiation with Mexico and Canada is to focus on ways to make it easier for small companies to qualify for duty-free treatment under NAFTA. Lighthizer’s letter seemed to suggest the administration was interested in doing that. It’s easy for big corporations to comply with the myriad rules and regulations that cover imports, exports and free trade agreements; they can hire armies of lawyers and trade specialists to manage compliance with them. Most small firms can’t do that and many find that compliance isn’t worth the time and money. So, they don’t export. Or they export without applying for duty-free treatment under NAFTA. They just pay the tariff. A 2015 Thomson Reuters Global Trade Management survey of small business owners found that complying with rules of origin and other regulations was the principal difficulty that they faced in exporting their products.

To qualify for duty-free treatment under NAFTA, an exporter most certify that a certain percentage of a product’s value originated in the U.S., Mexico or Canada. There are two problems with this. One is that small manufacturers don’t always know where all their parts and components came from and it can be difficult to track them all down. They have to call their suppliers, who may have to call another supplier. The other problem is that the U.S. government allows exporters to use one of two processes for determining regional content and, for most people, neither of them is easy to navigate. . . .

Making this process easier would increase imports and reduce the trade deficit, although not by much.

If the U.S. negotiators can focus their efforts on these constructive and necessary improvements to NAFTA, rather than on the threats and ultimatums that Trump and his nationalist faction in the White House have made, they might end up with an agreement that all three countries will be happy to sign.

On May 25th, the US Pork Producers issued the attached white paper, NAFTAReport05-24-17, arguing that if NAFTA negotiations lead to the disruption of agricultural exports generally – and pork exports specifically – to Canada and Mexico, that would “have devastating consequences for our farmers and the many American processing and transportation industries and workers supported by these exports.”

The White paper cites an Iowa State economist who states that if Mexico were to respond to a US withdrawal from NAFTA with a 20% duty on pork, the US port industry would lose the entire Mexican market.

Nick Giordano for the National Pork producers went on to state:

“A loss in exports to Mexico of that magnitude would be cataclysmic for the U.S. pork industry. Pork producers will support updating and improving NAFTA but only if duties on U.S. pork remain at zero and pork exports are not disrupted.”

On May 24th, USTR Lighthizer pledged that boosting agricultural exports remains a top priority for the Trump administration. He added that he and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue are under specific marching orders to protect current market access for U.S. farm products in the revised NAFTA. Lighthizer specifically stated:

“The president has specifically told each of us that this is a very, very top priority. One, not to do any damage and two, to add to the bottom line. So we expect to do that.”

BORDER ADJUSTMENT TAXES

The only good news about Border Adjustment taxes is the President Trump did not include Border Adjustment Taxes in his tax proposal to Congress. Despite the decision not to put border adjustment taxes (“BAT”) in the Administration’s tax proposal, the House Republicans and Ways and Means Committee continue to push it. See May 23rd Ways and Means hearing on Border Adjustment Taxes, at https://waysandmeans.house.gov/live/.

Archer Daniel Midland argued for the BAT, citing problems with Agriculture exports, but the retailers, including Target and WalMart, came out strongly against it. One witness stated that US products are taxed twice, but imports are only taxed once and get a rebate when the product is exported to the US.

But it was also clear from the hearing that Congressmen are split on the Border Adjustment tax.

On May 23, 2017 Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, however, in a closed-door meeting with Democrats on the Ways and Means stated that both he and President Trump are opposed to the Border Adjustment Tax. One California Democrat, Judy Chu, on the Ways and Means Committee, directly asked Mnuchin if he supported the BAT. As she stated Mnuchin’s concern was the impact on consumers:

“He actually said straight out that he doesn’t support it and the president doesn’t support it. Unless he was lying to us yesterday, I really felt it was dead on arrival.”

On May 24th, Paul Ryan stated that the BAT needs to be changed and immediately imposing it in its full form would be “too disruptive”.

As indicated in previous blog posts, I feel very strongly about the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies program because with very low funding it has a true track record of saving US companies. In fact, in the ongoing Section 201 case on Solar Cells, the statute requires the industry seeking protection to provide a trade adjustment plan to the Commission to explain how the industry intends to adjust if trade relief is provided. The problem is that the Commission is not the entity with experience on determining whether the Trade Adjustment plans are viable. The entities with that experience in trade adjustment plans are the various trade adjustment centers throughout the US.

Donald Trump’s proposed budget, however, would 0/zero out the trade adjustment assistance for companies program. Although Secretary Wilbur Ross has made it very clear he wants to increase exports to reach the 3% plus growth rate, putting protectionist walls up to limit imports of steel, aluminum and many other products invites retaliation.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program does not put up barriers to imports. Instead the TAA for Companies program works with US companies injured by imports to make them more competitive. The objective of TAA for Companies is to save the company and by saving the company it saves the jobs that go with that company.

In contrast to TAA for workers, TAAF or TAA for Companies is provided by the Economic Development Administration at the Commerce Department to help companies adjust to import competition before there is a massive lay-off or closure. Yet the program does not interfere in the market or restrict imports in any way.

Right now the total cost to the US Taxpayer for this nationwide program is $12.5 million dollars—truthfully peanuts in the Federal budget. Moreover, the Federal government saves money because if the company is saved, the jobs are saved and there are fewer workers to retrain and the saved company and workers end up paying taxes at all levels of government rather than being a drain on the Treasury. In his budget, Trump increases TAA for Workers, but kills TAA for Companies. Yet to retrain the worker for a new job, the average cost per job in TAA for workers is $5,000. To save the company and the jobs that go with it in the TAA for Companies program, the average cost per job is $1,000.

Moreover, TAA for Firms/Companies works. In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.nwtaac.org/, has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.mataac.org, uses a video, http://mataac.org/howitworks/, to show in detail how the program resulted in significant turnarounds for four companies. The reason the TAA for Firms/Companies is so successful—Its flexibility in working with companies on an individual basis to come up with a specific adjustment plan to make them competitive once again in the US market as it exists today. For a sample recovery plan, see http://mataac.org/documents/2014/06/sample-adjustment-plan.pdf, which has been developed specific to the strengths, weaknesses and threats each company faces.

But as also stated in my last blog post, in this environment with so many injured companies, funding for TAA for Firms/Companies has to be increased so it can do its job. Moreover, with the threats of a massive trade war in the air, which will injure all US companies and destroy US jobs, the US government needs to look at an alternative—TAA for Firms/Companies is that alternative.

On April 10, 2017, in the attached ITC notice, SOCKETS MARINE ,PopSockets LLC filed a section 337 patent case against imports of Collapsible Sockets for Mobile Electronic Devices from the following Chinese companies:

On April 18, 2017, in the attached ITC notice, ROBOTIC VACUM CLEANERS, iRobot Corporation filed a section 337 patent case against imports of Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices from the following US and Chinese companies:

If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump’s Trade War on downstream industries, the Mechanical Tubing case, the Section 232 cases, the 201 case against Solar Cells, border adjustment taxes, US trade policy, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, trade adjustment assistance, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law, please feel free to contact me.

US CHINA TRADE WAR UPDATE APRIL 21, 2017—MANY NEW TRADE CASES BEING FILED

The Trump trade war has escalated big time with new antidumping and countervailing duty cases against Mechanical Tubing, Tool Chests and a new Section 232 National Security case against all Steel imports. Many importers simply do not realize how fast these trade cases move and how fast they can find themselves liable for antidumping and countervailing duties and other trade sanctions. With a sympathetic Trump Administration and a very sympathetic Wilbur Ross as the new Secretary of Commerce, more cases are going to be filed against China and numerous other countries.

In addition to the new trade cases, two section 337 patent cases has been filed against China on sockets for mobile electronic devices and robotic vacuum cleaning devices.

The cold-drawn mechanical tubing covered by the complaint is used to produce numerous different products in the United States, including auto parts and machinery.

As stated above, these trade cases move very quickly and many importers are blindsided because of the speed of the investigations. In the Mechanical Tubing case, as indicated in the attached notice, ITC PRELIM MECHANICAL TUBING NOTICE, the ITC will conduct its preliminary injury hearing on May 10, 2017. US importers’ liability for countervailing duties on imports from China and India will start on September 16, 2017, 150 days after the petition was filed, and for Antidumping Duties will start on November 15, 2017, 210 days after the petition was filed.

The entire investigation will take one year and antidumping and countervailing duty orders can last for 5 to 30 years.

If Importers want to fight the case, they must move quickly. The first ITC hearing in the case will be on May 10, 2017, which is the part of the proceeding where importers can have a real impact.

On April 11, 2017, Waterloo Industries Inc. filed major Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases against hundreds of millions of dollars of imports of certain tool chests and cabinets from China and Vietnam.

As indicated in the attached notice, ITC PRELIM MECHANICAL TUBING NOTICE, in the Tool Chests case, the ITC will conduct its preliminary injury hearing on May 2, 2017. US importers’ liability for countervailing duties on imports from China will start on September 8, 2017, 150 days after the petition was filed, and for Antidumping Duties from China and Vietnam will start on November 7, 2017, 210 days after the petition was filed.

The entire investigation will take one year and antidumping and countervailing duty orders can last for 5 to 30 years.

If Importers want to fight the case, they must move quickly. The first ITC hearing in the case will be on May 2, 2017, which is the part of the proceeding where importers can have a real impact.

Attached is a copy of the relevant parts of the AD and CVD complaints along with a list of the targeted Chinese and Vietnamese exporters/producers and US importers, Tool chests CHN VNM petition vol 1 narrative. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me.

With a sympathetic Trump Administration in power, there will be a sharp rise in AD and CVD cases against China and other countries.

NEW NATIONAL SECURITY SECTION 232 CASE AGAINST STEEL IMPORTS FROM NUMEROUS COUNTRIES, INCLUDING CHINA

If the Commerce Department determines that the steel imports are a threat to national security, President Trump will be empowered to levy high tariffs and quotas on imports of steel products from various countries.

Under Section 232, the Commerce Department will conduct an investigation into the potential national security threat posed by the entry of foreign steel into the U.S. market. Commerce must issue its findings to the White House within 270 days, along with recommendations on what steps to take.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has stated, however, that the investigation may move along a faster track. Once Commerce’s review is completed, the President has 90 days to decide whether to accept or reject its recommendations and to impose trade restraints, including tariffs or quotas on steel imports.

This may be the first attack, not just against China, but all steel imports from every country. The problems with Commerce self-initiating antidumping and countervailing duty cases is the International Trade Commission. The Administration does not control the ITC, but it does control Commerce. By bringing a section 232 case, the Administration skips the injury test by the ITC and assuming the Commerce Department reaches an affirmative determination, the President is empowered to impose import relief in the form of tariffs and quotas. From the Administration’s point of view, there is more than one way to solve the import problem.

NEW SECTION 337 CASES AGAINST CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES

COLLAPSIBLE SOCKETS FROM MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES

On April 10, 2017, in the attached ITC notice, SOCKETS MARINE, PopSockets LLC filed a section 337 patent case against imports of Collapsible Sockets for Mobile Electronic Devices from the following Chinese companies:

On April 18, 2017, in the attached ITC notice, ROBOTIC VACUM CLEANERS, iRobot Corporation filed a section 337 patent case against imports of Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices from the following US and Chinese companies:

If you have any questions about these cases or about the antidumping and countervailing duty cases, Section 232 Steel case, Trump and Trade, US trade policy, or 337 IP/patent law, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR MARCH 26, 2017

Dear Friends,

Although politicians in Washington DC have been focused on Obamacare and Russian involvement in the election, trade issues lurk beneath the surface. Trade was stirred up with the release of Trump’s Trade Agenda, Lighthizer Confirmation Hearings, rumors of internal fights in the Trump trade team and meetings with foreign leaders, including Angela Merkel of Germany. In fact, the amount of material on trade is mountainous.

One of the pillars for Trump’s objective of hitting a 3 percent annual growth rate (Obama never got over 2%,), is increased US exports, but as indicated above, trade is a two-way street. As Democratic Congressman Rick Larson of Washington stated recently at the Washington Council on International Trade Meeting on March 13, the Trump Administration has to choose between a trade policy of Trade Agreements or Border Adjustment Taxes. If the Trump Administration intends to hit imports with increased Border Adjustment Taxes, it will be very difficult to negotiate trade agreements with the many countries on Trump’s list.

On March 21st, in pushing the Republicans in the House of Representatives to push for the Obamacare repeal bill, President Trump stated that without the Obamacare repeal, the Republicans cannot take up the Tax Bill. But with the collapse of the Obamacare repeal on March 24th, Congress is pivoting to Tax Reform. That means tax reform, including the Border Adjustment Taxes, will be front and center. The target of Trump and the Republican Congress is to pass a tax reform bill by August.

Thus the Trump Administration will be soon at a crossroads—increased taxes/tariffs on imports or trade agreements. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to have both.

Meanwhile, the decision of Senate Democrats to stall on the Confirmation of Robert Lighthizer has hurt the trade debate in the Administration. Lighthizer knows trade law. Many of the officials, such as Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, in the Administration, do not know trade law and the Democratic decision to stall the confirmation truly has hurt the United States.

In addition to Border Adjustment taxes, this newsletter contains several articles about Trump and Trade or the Trump Trade Report. There are growing arguments between Administration officials and by Republican Senators and Representatives outside the Administration on the Trump Trade Policy as officials and Senators and Congressmen understand the ramifications of a protectionist trade policy on the constituents in their States and Districts.

Agriculture is waking up. During the recent March 14 Confirmation Hearing of Robert Lighthizer, one could see the concerns of Senators from Agricultural States as they realize that agricultural exports, their ox will be the one gored by the new Trump trade policy.

Meanwhile, NAFTA will be renegotiated; CFIUS may include reciprocity: China is taking a divide and conquer strategy on the Non-Market Economy Issue in Antidumping Cases; and new trade cases have been filed on Aluminum Foil and Silicon Metal.

ZTE has agreed to pay record fines because of its export control violations; and a recent section 337 patent case stated that the US production of the patent lessee can be used to meet the domestic industry requirement.

In addition, hopefully Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, which is the only effective US trade remedy that saves companies and the jobs that go with them without curtailing imports, will expand.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

On March 1, 2017, the Trump Administration issued its attached National Trade Policy Agenda for 2017 pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2213(a)(l)(B), 2017 TRUMP Trade Agenda. In the short summary, which was released on March 1st, Trump stated in part:

“The overarching purpose of our trade policy – the guiding principle behind all of our actions in this key area – will be to expand trade in a way that is freer and fairer for all Americans. Every action we take with respect to trade will be designed to increase our economic growth, promote job creation in the United States, promote reciprocity with our trading partners, strengthen our manufacturing base and our ability to defend ourselves, and expand our agricultural and other exports.

As a general matter, we believe that these goals can be best accomplished by focusing on bilateral negotiations rather than multilateral negotiations – and by renegotiating and revising trade deals when our goals are not being met. Finally, we reject the notion that the United States can strengthen its geopolitical position by adopting trade measures that make American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses less competitive in global markets.”

In other words, the Trump Administration will take a much stronger position on trade agreements and trade policy.

The most controversial part of the Trade Policy Agenda is the strict approach to the WTO. Thus, one of the key objectives of the Agenda is”

“Resisting efforts by other countries – or international bodies like the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) – to weaken the rights and benefits of, or increase the obligations under, the various trade agreements to which the United States is a party.”

The Agenda then states under the section “Defending Our National Sovereignty Over Trade Policy”:

“it has been a basic principle of our country that American citizens are subject only to laws and regulations made by the U.S. government – not rulings made by foreign governments or international bodies. This principle remains true today. Accordingly, the Trump Administration will aggressively defend American sovereignty over matters of trade policy.”

One of the key objectives, just like other Administrations, will be to reduce and eliminate foreign barriers to US exports, but the Agenda then goes on to state:

“It is time for a more aggressive approach. The Trump Administration will use all possible leverage – including, if necessary, applying the principle of reciprocity to countries that refuse to open their markets – to encourage other countries to give U.S. producers fair access to their markets. The purpose of this effort is to ensure that more markets are truly open to American goods and services and to enhance, rather than restrict, global trade and competition.”

One key principle the administration said it plans to apply is a form of trade quid pro quo called “reciprocity” to countries that refuse to open up their markets. Lawmakers and the Trump administration are considering toughening up national-security reviews of foreign investments into the U.S. to leverage better trade terms with China. If Beijing does not open up its markets to U.S. investors or exports, for example, the administration could use its powers to block Chinese deals to buy U.S. assets, or threaten higher tariffs on Chinese imports.

The Agenda also expresses an interest in using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to open up restraints in foreign countries to US exports. But 301 has not been used since the WTO’s 1995 inception. The Agenda states

“Properly used, Section 301 can be a powerful lever to encourage foreign countries to adopt more market-friendly policies. The Trump administration believes that it is essential to both the United States and the world trading system that all U.S. trade laws be strictly and effectively enforced.”

The Agenda also singles out trade deficits with China, Mexico, Canada and Korea and calls for a renegotiation of trade agreements and a more aggressive approach to trade enforcement. Although these policies are very aggressive on paper, the question is how will the new Trump Administration apply these policies.

In conclusion, the Agenda states:

“For more than 20 years, the United States government has been committed to trade policies that emphasized multilateral agreements and international dispute settlement mechanisms. The hope was that by giving up some of our willingness to act independently, we could obtain better treatment for U.S. workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses, Instead, we find that in too many instances, Americans have been put at an unfair disadvantage in global markets. Under these circumstances, it is time for a new trade policy that defends American sovereignty, enforces U.S. trade laws, uses American leverage to open markets abroad, and negotiates new trade agreements that are fairer and more effective both for the United States and for the world trading system, particularly those countries committed to a market-based economy.”

The Trump Administration also stated that it intends to update the document when Congress confirms Robert Lighthizer as the next US Trade Representative.

Parts of the policy document contain arguments similar to those in a widely attached circulated memorandum Mr. Lighthizer wrote in 2010 to the US China Commission, LIGHTHIZER 2010 STATEMENT US CHINA ECONOMIC SECURITY COMMISSION. At the time, Mr. Lighthizer told a congressionally mandated China commission that the U.S. could put its WTO commitments on hold, restricting imports from China until the country changes its behavior in key areas.

When the Trump Trade Agenda came out, the Press reported that the Trump Administration will ignore adverse decisions from the WTO. During the Obama Administration, however, although WTO decisions were not ignored, they were slow walked, especially in the antidumping and countervailing duty area, with only small changes made in response to the WTO decision.

The Trump Administration will probably follow the same procedures. The rubber will only meet the road when in response to adverse WTO decisions, foreign countries work up retaliation lists. Then the Administration will have to decide whether to ignore the WTO decision or not.

In fact, after the Agenda was released, Presidential spokesman Sean Spicer stated that noncompliance with the WTO was not the formal policy of the administration.

In addition, many trade experts believe that the Trade Agenda was just rhetoric and we will need to see whether in the future there truly will be a fundamental shift in actual trade policy. As one trade expert told me, it will take years for this policy to actually work out.

Moreover, as indicated below, Agriculture is waking up. Now that Agricultural Senators and Congressmen realize that if there is a trade war, their ox is the one that will get gored, agriculture exports will be seriously hurt, the Trump Administration will probably slow up its aggressive trade policy as the hot protectionist rhetoric meets the realities of the international trade system where trade is a two way street.

If the United States truly signals it will not comply with WTO decisions, and other countries impose retaliatory penalties against U.S. imports, it could usher in an era of economic protectionism worldwide, which could trigger a global trade war that could disrupt international business and growth. But that also would mean that the Trump Administration will not meet its 3% GDP growth target for the entire economy.

The real issue that the Trump Administration simply does not understand is that even though there may be trade deficits, free trade rises all boats. The US now has over $1 trillion in exports, but the Trump Administration is focused on trade deficits with countries, such as China, Mexico and Germany. The Trump Administration ignores the trade surpluses with other countries. More importantly, free trade agreements have caused all boats to rise, increasing economic activity in the United States and creating jobs. Because of NAFTA, US exports have quintupled creating millions of new jobs, but the Trump Administration appears to focus only on the trade deficit, which is relatively small in comparison to the surge in US exports.

At the same time that the White House issued its trade agenda on March 1, John Brinkley of Forbes, in an article entitled, “Trump’s Trade Ideas As Bad As Ever,” responded to on President Trump’s first “State of the Union” address to the Congress where Trump stated:

“I believe strongly in free trade, but it also has to be fair trade.

Fine, but how do you achieve fair trade? Is it to punish other countries whose trade policies aren’t advantageous to the United States? Or is it to work with them collegially to get them to change those policies?
The latter course is the one that all presidents since World War II have chosen. They have negotiated 14 free trade agreements with 20 countries – agreements that require parties to eliminate tariffs and give fair and equitable treatment to one another.

Previous presidents helped set up the GATT and then the World Trade Organization as a forum for ensuring that countries play by the rules of global trade. Since the WTO was created in 1994, the United States has quietly resolved hundreds of trade disputes in its favor through WTO-sponsored consultations.

When consultations don’t solve the problem, the government can file a formal complaint in the WTO’s Dispute Resolution Body. If it rules in our favor, we can impose temporary, retaliatory tariffs or demand compensation.

That is fair trade. Accusing other countries of taking advantage of us, threatening them with exorbitant tariffs, and declaring that the United States is not beholden to WTO rules, as the Trump administration did today, is not fair trade. It’s more like anarchy.

On March 8, 2017 after the Trade Policy Agenda was issued, John Brinkley of Forbes published another article entitled, “Trump’s Disdain For WTO Portends Only Trouble” stating:

After the World Trade Organization was established in 1995, the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations made good use of its dispute settlement system. The United States is batting about .500 in cases that proceeded to a final ruling; most of them don’t. Barack Obama had a perfect record in the WTO when he left office, but some of the complaints his administration filed are still pending.

None of the three presidents said the system was unfair or tried to make an end run around it.

Then came Donald Trump. He has nothing but disdain for the WTO and for the very idea of an international organization making and enforcing rules that the United States has to obey. So, in keeping with Trump’s “America First” ideology, the White House declared last week that America doesn’t have to follow those rules.

When one country accuses another of a trade rule violation, such as dumping a product in the host country at below-market value or unfairly subsidizing a domestic industry, the first step toward resolving it is a WTO-sponsored consultation between the two governments. If that fails, the accuser can request a hearing by a dispute settlement panel. The loser of that proceeding can take its case to the WTO’s Appellate Body.

Between 1995 and 2015, the United States filed 109 complaints to the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body and had 124 filed against it. The U.S. government has settled about two-thirds of them through consultations, thus making recourse to a hearing unnecessary. Like most diplomatic initiatives, these results are achieved out of the public eye and without fanfare.

It’s hard to know what the Trump administration finds objectionable about this system, or why he considers the WTO “a disaster.” None of the WTO’s 163 other members seem to have a problem with it.

But Trump and his merry band of protectionists think they know a better way: to ignore the WTO if it issues a ruling they don’t like.

The President’s Trade Policy Agenda for 2017 says legislation enacted in 1994 lets the administration decide arbitrarily whether to comply with a WTO dispute settlement ruling that goes against the United States.

“If a WTO dispute settlement report is adverse to the United States, [the U.S. Trade Representative shall] consult with the appropriate Congressional committees concerning whether to implement the report’s recommendation, and, if so, the manner of such implementation and the period of time needed for such implementation,” the Trade Policy Agenda says.

In other words, the United States will comply with WTO decisions – decisions based on rules that the United States helped write – if it feels like it. Incredibly, Trump, et al, seem to think this approach would have no negative consequences.

If the U.S. government refuses to comply with a dispute settlement ruling against it, the WTO can authorize retaliation by the aggrieved party. That is likely to be a tariff increase targeted at the industry whose trade practices led to the adverse ruling. If a targeted tariff increase isn’t feasible, the aggrieved country can raise tariffs against some other industry.

Presumably, Trump would then retaliate against the retaliator and off we’d go into a destructive trade war.

It’s important to understand that the United States was intimately involved in the creation of the WTO and the drafting of its rules. During previous administrations, the U.S. ambassador to the WTO was in Geneva almost every day protecting the interests of the American industries and workers. Contrary to what Trump says, the WTO is not a foreign body accountable to no one. It’s a democratic institution, accountable to its members.

As former U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in the President’s Trade Agenda for 2014:

“A robust international trading system offers the greatest economic benefits when all trading partners abide by their commitments and play by the same rules.”

But as of March 23, 2017, Lighthizer’s confirmation vote is being held up in the Committee and on the Senate floor because his status as an advocate more than 30 years ago for the Brazilian government in a 1985 trade case, prior to the time when I was an associate at Skadden, Arps, appears to require a waiver in order for him to assume his role at USTR. Unfortunately, this decision has left Lighthizer, the best trade lawyer on Trump’s team, out of the internal discussions on trade policy.

The White House has itself pushed to make the waiver vote unnecessary. White House counsel Donald F. McGahn wrote to Hatch and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on March 3 citing a Clinton-era Office of Legal Counsel opinion as a challenge to the waiver rule.

A week after the March 21st confirmation hearing, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas stated:

“I think we made it clear, I think [Finance Chairman] Orrin Hatch made it very clear that it’s not needed. But I don’t know what mood our friends across the aisle are in, and I have no idea what they’re going to do.”

“We’ve made it clear we’re going to insist on the waiver. There’s this quaint idea that the law should actually matter, and the law says a person in his position has got to get a waiver.”

Thus Lighthizer’s nomination has been held up “for what feels like eons” according to Wyden, but at this point in time it is still not moving.

Meanwhile on March 22, 2017, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the attached letter, chamber_letter, pushed for a quick vote Lighthizer for USTR stating:

“Mr. Lighthizer has led a distinguished career as a trade policy practitioner and has a reputation as a staunch advocate for American industry. The Chamber believes he will represent the nation’s interests well as he works with international partners and addresses trade challenges at the negotiating table and before the World Trade Organization. The Chamber encourages a swift vote on his nomination and looks forward to working with him as the next U.S. Trade Representative.”

During the Confirmation hearing, Lighthizer had bipartisan support with many Democratic and Republican Senators vouching support for his candidacy. One of the two issues of primary importance was the decision to break mega deals, such as the TPP, into bilateral deals with individual countries.

The problem, however, is that trade deals take a lot of time to negotiate. The TPP took almost 10 years to negotiate with the 12 countries involved. But by abandoning the TPP, with an objective of creating individual trade deals with the TPP member companies, the US Government has probably quintupled its work load, if not increased it twelve fold.

Although Lighthizer indicated that USTR would use the TPP draft agreement as a basis to negotiate a number of bilateral agreements, negotiating that many trade deals will take an enormous amount of work by a very small agency – USTR—with only just over 200 employees at offices in Brussels Belgium, Geneva Switzerland and Washington DC. Trump’s budget is not clear whether USTR will get an increase in budget or whether its budget will be cut.

The second point is the importance of Trade Deals to US Agriculture exports. In the Lighthizer confirmation hearing, all of a sudden Senators from agriculture states started to wake up. If the TPP had passed, the biggest winner would have been US agriculture exports with tariffs dropping on more than 18,000 different products, many being agricultural products. Now the TPP is gone and countries are racing into those overseas markets to replace US agricultural products.

Agriculture Senators and Congressmen want trade deals now because the United States is exporting billions of dollars in agricultural products to the rest of the World. Mexican government officials recently declared that since Trump wants to be tough on trade with Mexico, they will cut $2.4 billion in imports of corn from the United States and replace the US corn with corn from Brazil and Argentina. Congressman Newhouse at a recent Washington Council on International Trade stated that after the Korea FTA, exports of Washington State cherries doubled and Washington State French fries increased by 52%. Increased exports means more jobs.

With a decision not to do the TPP, Senators and Congressmen from agricultural states fear that other countries will replace the United States and get those benefits. As indicated below, that is a real and justified fear.

TRUMP TRADE AGENDA—OPPOSITION TO THE TRUMP TRADE POLICY IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND IN CONGRESS

Part of the Trump trade problem is the perception by Trump and many on his internal trade staff, such as Peter Navarro, that trade is a one-way street. The Administration apparently believes it can simply issue an executive order raising tariffs, taxes or barriers to imports with no reaction by foreign countries.

But the Trump Administration is now in the international arena. Although Trump won the Presidency, he has no political power over foreign countries. Trade is a two-way street and as stated in several past newsletters, Mexico, Canada, China, and Germany have all threatened retaliation if the US imposes trade restraints, including Border Adjustment Taxes. Deals have to be negotiated, but most countries, including the US, will not negotiate a deal when a gun is pointed at their head.

On March 10th the Financial Times reported that a trade war had broken out in White House in what was called “a fiery meeting” in the Oval Office pitting economic nationalists close to Donald Trump against pro­trade moderates in Treasury and the Economic Council from Wall Street.

Navarro is the ultra-nationalist economist who has angered Berlin and other European allies by accusing Germany of currency manipulation and exploiting a “grossly undervalued” euro and calling for bilateral discussions with Angela Merkel’s government over ways to reduce the US trade deficit with Germany.

The fight was between trade hardliners, such as Steve Bannon and Peter Narvarro, against the free trade economic faction led by Gary Cohn, the executive from Goldman Sachs, who heads the National Economic Council. Note that since Lighthizer has not been confirmed, he could not be part of the discussion. Bannon and Navarro support the Border Adjustment Tax while Cohn and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin oppose it.

During the last several weeks, Navarro appeared to be losing influence. But during the recent Oval Office fight, Mr Trump appeared to side with the economic nationalists.

Mr Navarro’s case has angered Republicans in Congress because he was criticized for being ill­prepared and vague at a closed­door briefing he held with Senators in February.

Reports have been made that Mr Navarro is becoming increasingly isolated in the administration. He has been operating with a very small staff out of an office in the Old Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, while Mr Cohn has been adding staff to his NEC base inside the West Wing of the White House.

On March 5th, Navarro published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on why trade deficits matter:

Do trade deficits matter? The question is important because America’s trade deficit in goods is large and persistent, about $2 billion every day. . . .

Reducing a trade deficit through tough, smart negotiations is a way to increase net exports—and boost the rate of economic growth. . . .

Similarly, if the U.S. uses its leverage as the world’s largest market to persuade India to reduce its notoriously high tariffs and Japan to lower its formidable nontariff barriers, America will surely sell more Washington apples, Florida oranges, California wine, Wisconsin cheese and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Just as surely, the U.S. trade deficit would fall, economic growth would increase, and real wages would rise from Seattle and Orlando to Sonoma and Milwaukee. . . .

But running large and persistent trade deficits also facilitates a pattern of wealth transfers offshore. . .

Might we lose a broader hot war because America has sent its defense-industrial base abroad on the wings of a persistent trade deficit?

Today, after decades of trade deficits and a mass migration of factories offshore, there is only one American company that can repair Navy submarine propellers—and not a single company that can make flat-panel displays for military aircraft or night-vision goggles. Meanwhile, America’s steel industry is on the ropes, its aluminum industry is flat on its back, and its shipbuilding industry is gathering barnacles. The U.S. has begun to lose control of its food-supply chain, and foreign firms are eager to purchase large swaths of Silicon Valley’s treasures.

Much of Wall Street and most economists simply don’t care. But to paraphrase Mike Pence on the 2016 campaign trail, the people of Fort Wayne know better. The analysts at the Pentagon know better, too. That’s why, for both economic and national-security reasons, it is important to bring America’s trade back into balance—through free, fair and reciprocal trade.

As indicated below, however, do trade deficits justify increased US barriers to imports? Wouldn’t a policy of making companies more competitive with imports, such as Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, explained below be a better option. TAA does not risk retaliation from other countries.

Moreover, as stated above, focusing on trade deficits ignores the enormous increase in US exports to those countries. Navarro focuses on a trade deficit and ignores the fact that US exports are over $1 trillion and support millions of jobs. A trade war will cut those exports and jobs in half. That will not make America great again.

Recently Navarro attempted to intervene in an antidumping duty case at the Commerce Department on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea sparking outrage from the trade lawyers representing the Korean steel mills. Navarro should keep in mind that the Commerce Department in antidumping cases makes its decision based on the facts on the administrative record and the Commerce Department’s determinations are subject to Court review by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the past, Courts have made clear that when a Government agency, such as the Commerce Department, makes a decision based on politics, that is a reason for depositions of the government official. Navarro might be deposed in any appeal of the OCTG case to the Court.

On March 13, John Brinkley of Forbes in an article entitled, “Commerce Secretary Ross Thinks U.S. Is In A Trade War”, which also addressed Navarro’s thinking, stated:

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, responding to concerns that the Trump administration is pushing the United States toward a trade war, said we were already in one.

“We’ve been in a trade war for decades,” he said last week in an interview with Bloomberg News. “That’s why we have the (trade) deficits.”

But not to worry, Ross said. “It’s not going to be a shooting war. If people know you have the big bazooka, you probably don’t have to use it.”

That’s the Luca Brasi negotiating method: bend to our will or we’ll blow you to smithereens. Peter Navarro, the head of the White House National Trade Council, recently suggested that future trade agreements include a rule stating that they can be renegotiated any time the U.S. runs a trade deficit with the partner country. That is, to put it mildly, a non-starter.

Ross’s and Navarro’s remarks are symptomatic of the Trump administration’s singular obsession with trade deficits. However, the fact that the United States has a global trade deficit does not mean we’re in a trade war. It doesn’t mean our trading partners are cheating us any more than that we’re cheating Canada and the United Kingdom by running trade surpluses with them. It means we import more than we export. One of the reasons for that is the strength of the dollar in foreign exchange markets. A strong dollar makes imports less expensive and exports more expensive. That, in turn, leads to more choices and lower prices for American consumers.

Navarro said in a recent speech that trade surpluses were synonymous with economic growth. History suggests otherwise. The U.S. economy added 235,000 jobs in February and the unemployment rate fell to 4.7%. The trade deficit in January (February not available yet) was $48.5 billion, the highest it’s been since March 2012.

The trade deficit decreased during the recession of 2008-09. The United States ran a trade surplus through most of the Great Depression.

Ross didn’t say who the enemy was in this supposed trade war, but President Trump has made it clear that he has it in for China and Mexico, our second and third largest trading partners, respectively. Our largest bilateral trade deficits are with those countries.

So, Trump intends to renegotiate NAFTA. And, he has threatened China with punitive tariffs. He has said doing these things would erase the U.S. trade deficit, cause a renaissance of American manufacturing jobs and bring the 3% GDP growth he promised.

They would do none of those things.

“Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and launching trade actions against China ensure political headlines, but they will not make much difference to the global U.S. trade deficit. Nor will they bring more jobs and higher wages to U.S. workers,” said Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Euijin Jung of the Peterson Institute of International Economics in an article published in February.

They also noted that the trade deficit is financed in part by foreign direct investment, which is unquestionably beneficial to the U.S. economy. Foreign-owned companies operating in the United States directly employ 6.1 million Americans, according to the U.S. Commerce Department. FDI stock in the U.S. stands at almost $3 trillion.

One way to reduce the trade deficit would be to devalue the dollar against the Chinese yuan and other currencies. That would be politically difficult because it’s what Trump (wrongly) accuses China of doing on a regular basis. It would also raise the prices of imported food and manufactured goods and, possibly, cause inflation. That would hurt low-income Americans the most.

A better idea would be for the Trump trade triumvirate to calculate America’s balance of trade with its 20 free trade agreement partners. They would find that we have an aggregate trade surplus with them. Maybe then they’d reconsider their plans to renegotiate or withdraw from those agreements.

If Ross thinks we’re in a trade war now, let him propose raising tariffs against Mexico and China over and above the World Trade Organization’s Most Favored Nation rates. Then, we’d be in a trade war for real.

NAVARRO’S STANDING WITH CONGRESS DROPS

On March 16th, senior trade officials from the administration, minus Robert Lighthizer, headed up to Capitol Hill to talk with members of the House Ways and Means Committee about NAFTA, among other trade topics – marking the latest step in what one administration official described as a series of ongoing consultations between the administration and Congress before the White House formally moves to reopen the agreement.

The next step will be for the administration to formally notify Congress that its NAFTA plans to begin talks, triggering a congressionally mandated 90-day consultation period before the renegotiation can start.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stated that the White House hopes to send that notification letter “sometime in the next couple of weeks,” meaning formal talks are likely to begin around early summer. Ross is expected attended the March 16th meeting, as did senior members of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative including general counsel and acting USTR Stephen Vaughn, and deputy general counsel Maria Pagan.

Peter Navarro, however, did not go to the Capital Hill meeting. After a meeting with the Senate Finance Committee in February – which was described as “a disaster” – Navarro made such a poor impression that Senators viewed it as a reason for why they need to get USTR nominee Robert Lighthizer confirmed as soon as possible. That meeting also spurred additional questions about who is really in charge on trade and led to strong reminders that USTR holds the statutory authority.

G-20 BECOMES MORE PROTECTIONIST

On March 18th, the trade protectionist rhetoric increased as it was reported that the G-20 member states dropped the no-protectionism pledge, which indicates more trade storms to come.The G­20 is an informal forum on economic cooperation made up of 19 countries plus the European Union.Finance ministers from the Group of 20 countries met in the southern German town of Baden­Baden and issued a statement saying only that countries “are working to strengthen the contribution of trade” to their economies. In last yearʹs meeting under the Obama Administration, called on countries to resist “all forms” of protectionism, which can include border tariffs and rules that keep out imports to shield domestic companies from competition.

During the press conference, I was told that U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, was peppered with questions about the border adjustment tax. Munchin did state that trade deals need to offer a win-win scenario and went on to state:

“We believe in free trade: we are one of the largest markets in the world, we are one of the largest trading partners in the world. Having said that, we want to re­examine certain agreements… And to the extent that agreements are old agreements and need to be renegotiated weʹll consider that as well.”

AGRICULTURE WAKES UP BECAUSE IT REALIZES HOW MUCH IT WILL LOSE WITH A PROTECTIONIST ANTI TRADE POLICY

In the past, many reporters have asked me what could China or other countries retaliate against. The United States does not export much. US exports are simply too small. In the face of large trade deficits with China, Mexico and other countries in the manufacturing area, what is the US exporting that can be a retaliation target?

US trade data indicate that US exports for 2016 were over $1 trillion. In the Robert Lighthizer confirmation hearings, you could hear the real concern of many Senators, especially from the agriculture states, that products from their states could be retaliation targets. Their worry is certainly justified.

As Senator Pat Roberts stated at the Lighthizer Confirmation hearings:

“I’m going to try and demonstrate that we are going through a pretty rough patch in agriculture. If Trump makes good on his promises to turn U.S. trade policy into a war against imports, “we are going to get into a very difficult situation.”

During the Confirmation Hearing, Roberts, Grassley and other Agriculture Senators extracted a pledge from Lighthizer that in negotiating trade agreements he would push agriculture interests to the top of the list. Senators and Congressmen from Agriculture states fear that if no new trade agreements are negotiated, US agriculture will lose market share and will become the retaliation target of other countries.

Mexico, in fact, is one of the largest buyers of US corn, much of which comes from Kansas and Iowa. US exports about $2.4 billion in corn to Mexico. Now Mexico is talking about retaliation and buying its corn from Brazil and Argentina. What goes around comes around.

U.S. Senators and Congressmen noticed when a Mexican lawmaker introduced legislation favoring Latin American products over American- exported corn, a key winner in Nafta. That move followed warnings from Mr. Trump that Nafta would be renegotiated and Mexico would have to pay for a new border wall. In response, Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa stated:

“I have been worried because other countries have pushed back: ‘You want us to build a wall, well we’re not going to take your corn.’ If we’re talking about renegotiating Nafta, we actually stand to lose ground in agriculture—so we would really have to work that very, very carefully.”

On March 6th, leaders of the US Dairy industry were in Mexico to attempt and protect their exports from uncertainty over the future of NAFTA. After NAFTA was signed in 1994, American dairy exports to Mexico more than quadrupled to $1.2 billion, accounting for nearly one-fourth of all U.S. dairy exports last year. Because of Trump’s attacks on Mexico, it has encouraged Mexican importers to find other suppliers in the European Union and New Zealand, which are eager to get into the market, and in New Zealand’s case are part of the TPP.

In response to the criticism that Trump is putting his trade focus on the plight of the U.S. manufacturing sector at the expense of the export-dependent agriculture sector, on March 21st Trump pivoted to agriculture. Sean Spicer, the President’s press secretary stated:

“While our farmers are the most efficient in the world, margins have been tightening, regulations have been multiplying, and exports, which has historically counted for over one- fifth of the U.S. farm production, have been declining due to unwise trade policies. The President promised the many people in the agriculture industry and throughout rural America that he would not allow this to continue and he will continue to pursue policy changes that will reverse this disturbing trend.”

John Bode, president and CEO of the Corn Refiners Association praised the statement saying that Trump’s proclamation recognizes that “improved trade balances and a successful agriculture sector are inextricably linked.” He further stated:

“Our industry’s exports not only deliver jobs at home, they are among America’s fundamental strengths abroad. We are heartened to know that this White House agrees and that they will seek to increase agricultural exports as they examine existing and future trade agreements.”

Ray Starling, special assistant to the president for agriculture on the National Economic Council, recently stated at a National Ag Day event in Washington:

“The President has talked a lot about our manufacturing imbalance on trade, but that is not meant to neglect ag. That is essentially to say we know ag is doing a good job, we are making strides there, we need to do more.”

Now we have to wait and see if Trump truly means what he says or whether he wants a trade war, which will hurt US exports, especially in the agriculture area.

Back on January 26, 2017 in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Trump explained that he did not like multilateral trade deals, such as the TPP, because they are a mosh pit and fall to the lowest common denominator.

During his confirmation hearing, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stated that it easy to negotiate bilateral deals than multilateral deals. But the question is, will it be easier to negotiate 12 bilateral deals with 12 different countries when one deal, the TPP, would have done it. More importantly, although the US will renegotiate NAFTA and start trade deals with Japan and eventually Britain, is it truly realistic for the very small USTR to have continual negotiations with dozens of countries at the same time. The TPP took 10 years to negotiate. Maybe Ross is just playing a game and does not want more trade deals.

At a recent trade conference on March 13th here in Seattle held by the Washington Council on International Trade, however, it was very apparent that Washington State Congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans, want more trade deals.

At the Conference Congressman Dave Reichert, WA Republican, and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, House Ways and Means, stated that the Trump Administration intends to do more bilateral deals. He also stated that since NAFTA is a trilateral agreement, all three countries, Mexico, Canada and the US need to be at the table.

Reichert also stated that we cannot give up trade agreements because the cost would be too high. China will benefit. He also stated that the United States needs to set the international trade standards through trade agreements or China will do so and 95% of the World’s population and markets are outside US.

Reichert stated that the longer we wait to do trade deals, the more market shares we lose. He pointed to the FTA with Korea, which dramatically reduced the 24% Korean tariff on cherries, and Washington State cheery exports doubled and Washington French Fries went up 53%.

When NAFTA took place US exports to Mexico doubled reaching $180 billion. There is now over $500 billion in trade between US and Mexico

Following Reichert, Republican Congressman Dan Newhouse, who represents large Agricultural interests in the Center of Washington stated, “We cannot afford to waste any time as we create opportunities for local producers and exporters to gain access to new markets.”

Congressman Rick Larsen stated that the Administration has to decide whether it will do Border Adjustment taxes or trade deals. Larsen went on to state that trade is much bigger than just agreements. It is soft power. Asian countries see the US leading with military power, but the US relationship with the other Asian countries is less secure if the only relationship is military and not trade.

Democratic Congressman Denny Heck stated that TPP went too far too fast and was not politically possible. Echoing Donald Trump, Heck stated that the white working man has seen no increase in income in 40 years.

But Newhouse stated that after the Korea FTA, Washington State potato growers saw an increase in exports of 670,000 tons of French Fries to Korea. That is jobs.

On March 22nd, John Brinkley in an article entitled, Trump’s “Trade Policies Would Take From the Many and Give To a Few” points out the problem of relying only on bilateral agreements as compared to multilateral agreements:

“Politics can be defined as taking something from someone and giving it to someone else. Done right, the winners outnumber the losers and the sacrifice will have been worthwhile.

This seems lost on the Trump administration, whose trade proposals are likely to create a lot more losers than winners.

Let’s start with his plan to eschew multilateral trade agreements and negotiate only bilateral ones. With a multilateral agreement, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, all parties play by the same rules. That means exporters don’t have to figure out what the rules of origin are country-by- country. They’re all the same.

Deciphering and complying with rules of origin under a free trade agreement are among the most difficult and time-consuming chores that exporting companies have to perform. If the rule says 70 percent of a truck’s parts have to have been made in the United States, the company has to go to its suppliers and say, where did the door handles come from? Where did the tires come from?

A lot of smaller companies find it isn’t worth the time and expense, so they ship the product and pay the tariff. Or they don’t export at all.

Having a series of bilateral agreements makes it even harder, because each agreement would have its own rules of origin. American manufacturers were looking forward to ratification of the TPP, because it was to be a 12-country trading bloc with one set of rules. But Trump withdrew the United States from it.

Renegotiating NAFTA is another idea that would take from the many for the benefit of a few.

Breaking up NAFTA and negotiating separate bilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada would be even worse. U.S. Trade Representative nominee Robert Lighthizer said during his Senate confirmation hearing that the administration might take that course.

NAFTA has been in effect for 23 years. Whatever impacts it had on American employment and economic growth are well in the past. If you look under NAFTA’s hood, you see a complex network of supply chains crossing the three countries’ borders. They make it easy and cost-effective for American manufacturers to buy parts from Mexico or Canada and have them delivered quickly and duty-free.

About half of Mexico’s exports to the United States are parts for products that are built here – car parts, electronic components and so on.

Making those parts more expensive would make the products they go into more expensive and would reduce the importing companies’ revenues, leading to lay-offs or worse. That is basic economics.

Trump said yesterday that renegotiating NAFTA was “going to be an easy one.” Everyone who has ever been a trade negotiator probably got a chuckle out of that. . .. .

“The United States has been treated very, very unfairly by many countries over the years, and that’s going to stop,” he said last week during a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Poor little us. We’re being pushed around by those mean bullies from South Korea and Mexico.

Nonetheless, the U.S. and global economies have been growing at a healthy pace. The U.S. unemployment rate is 4.7 percent, about as low as it can go, and median wages have finally started to increase for the first time since the recession of 2008.

This seems to call for an economic policy of caution and restraint to keep the recovery going rather than taking a machete to our trade agreements and punishing our trading partners for transgressions they have not committed.

That would harm vastly more Americans than it would help.

On February 28th, however, it was reported that the EU expects the Trump Administration to negotiate with the entire block as EU countries pushed back on Trump’s bilateral dreams. European countries in the EU bloc have been unified against the Trump administration’s reported attempts to bring individual EU countries into direct, bilateral trade deals with the U.S. The EU ambassador at a recent National Press Club meeting stated that bilateral deals are “nonsense”. David O’ Sullivan stated:

“It’s nonsense to talk about bilateral deals with countries that are part of a single market. Would American companies really want 28 separate FTAs?”

In Germany, Martin Schäfer, spokesperson for the German foreign ministry, stated:

“The [European] Commission carries out trade negotiations and concludes trade agreements for Europe and for us. This is the legal status, about which we have nothing critical to say. The new political constellation in the U.S. and elsewhere should not tempt anybody to take up a different position.”

European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom also stated recently:

“The U.S. administration seems to favor bilateral relations over multilateralism. And some of the proposals we have seen floated, such as a border adjustment tax, could be at odds with WTO rules. Countries should be able to protect themselves from distortions and unfair trade practices. But that has to be done within the framework of the WTO. Global rules mean everyone playing fair, by a consistent, predictable and transparent rulebook.

In an age when some want to rebuild walls, re-impose barriers, restrict people’s freedom to move … we stand open to progressive trade with the world.”

On March 6th, a top European official stated that U.S. President Donald Trump’s protectionist stance may propel Asian, Middle Eastern and Latin American economic powers into market-opening alliances with the European Union. Jyrki Katainen, a vice president of the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, said Trump’s rejection of multilateral commercial deals and border-tax threat are giving impetus to the 28-nation bloc’s push for free- trade or investment pacts with countries including Japan, China, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.

Katainen stated that:

“When there has been some signals to raise protectionism, especially from the U.S. side, the rest of the world seems to be fighting back and saying that this is not our line, this is something which we don’t want. This is music to our ears.”

The comments signal that Trump’s “America First” approach that seeks to reduce the U.S.’s $502 billion trade deficit may be as much an opportunity as a threat to the EU.

Recently, the US equipment manufacturing industry, which supports more than 1.3 million jobs, expressed its concern about exports. A report by the Association of Equipment Manufacturers stated that about 30 percent of the construction equipment and about 30 percent of the agricultural equipment manufactured in the United States is designated for export – and would therefore be hit hardest by any slowdown in global trade:

“Slow international growth combined with uncertainty about trading rules under the Trump administration could act as a drag on the equipment manufacturing industry’s overall performance. Any steps the Trump administration might take to revisit or exit existing trade agreements could further complicate the challenging economic environment outside the United States.

It is difficult to precisely forecast how the Trump administration might rewrite existing trading rules, but any steps that make it more difficult for manufacturers to export their products could hinder growth in the industry.”

TPP CONTINUES WITHOUT THE US

On March 14th Government officials from the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership nations minus the United States held a two-day summit in Chile to discuss a path forward on trade following the US decision to withdraw from the TPP.

New Zealand Trade Minister Todd McClay stated:

“I have recently visited Australia, Japan, Singapore and Mexico, met with ministers from Brunei and Malaysia and talked directly with trade ministers from all other TPP countries. It is clear our partners remain committed to the benefits high quality trade agreements provide.”

Even though the TPP requires that at least six countries composing at least 85 percent of the entire TPP’s collective economic production, with the US withdrawal, the other 11 countries have decided to move forward with the TPP. As Wendy Cutler, a former trade negotiator at USTR, stated:

“A TPP agreement without the U.S. is still relevant and would have significant economic value. You’d still have four of the world’s 20 largest economies — Japan, Canada, Australia, and Mexico — alongside significant emerging economies, like Vietnam and Malaysia.”

In other words, other countries will replace US exports in those markets because they will have the benefit of the TPP.

After the meeting in Chile, Australian Trade Minister Steven Ciobo stated:

“I was particularly pleased there was continuing movement on the TPP. Countries remain committed to exploring all the avenues and opportunities in relation to the TPP. There was broad agreement on the high level of ambition in the TPP being a benchmark and something we shouldn’t just let slip away.”

Japanese State Minister Takao Ochi stated:

“As long as Japan is concerned we don’t want to exclude any possible ways and we would like to take initiative in discussing with each of the member countries.”

The 11 countries will now work to preserve the trade deal’s innovations, which included new rules on digital trade, disciplines for state-owned companies and what have been touted as the toughest labor and environment protections of any modern trade agreement. The innovations also include new market access that countries negotiated on everything from milk powder to insurance services.

BORDER ADJUSTMENT TAXES

As stated in my last newsletters, the big issue in the trade area right now is border adjustment taxes and tax reform. New Treasury Secretary Mnuchin says tax reform will take place in August 2017 and it is a priority for the Trump Administration. Part of that reform is Border Adjustment Taxes (“BAT”). See http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/02/23/treasury-secretary-mnuchin-lays-out-aggressive-timeline-for-tax-reform.html. As Mnuchin states, a US deficit of $20 trillion, which was doubled by President Obama, is a concern, but more important is economic growth, which will result in more tax revenue. To get economic growth, taxes and regulations have to be cut.

But with the failure of Obamacare in the House, taxes, including border adjustment taxes, move to the front of the Congressional calendar. Trump and Republicans in the Congress, especially the House, appear to be moving ahead with an alternative to tariffs to spur US manufacturing and that is taxes. There is now an attempt in Congress to give American-made products a big tax advantage over their foreign competitors through border adjustment taxes, and, in effect, counter the value added taxes used in other countries to deter imports. As Kevin Brady, Chairman of House Ways and Means, argues, almost 80% of countries border adjust their taxes. That includes Mexico, Canada, China, and the European countries, putting US exports at a substantial disadvantage. For Brady’s argument, see videos at the following links, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yYHGoFmNEk&feature=youtu.be and

Under a border adjustment tax (“BAT”), a 20% tax would be applied against all domestic products and imported products. But the domestic producer would be allowed to deduct all the domestic costs associated with producing that product. Thus if a $100 product was produced in the US, the domestic producer could deduct $70 in costs, resulting in a 20% tax on $30 or a $6 tax. But there would be no deduction of domestic costs for a $100 import resulting in a 20% tax on the full $100 or a $20 tax, giving the domestic product a 14% tax advantage. The BAT would not apply to exports.

This proposal has welled up from the House of Representatives and is strongly supported by House Speaker Paul Ryan and the Chairman of House Ways and Means, Kevin Brady. Their argument is that border adjustment tax is needed to offset value added taxes in other countries. Brady argues that the BAT is the only way to end the “Made in America” tax.

One example given is that if an automobile is produced in the US and exported to Mexico, a 35% corporate tax is levied on the profits of the US automaker and then the US automobile is hit with a 16% value added tax when it comes into Mexico. On the other hand, when an automobile is produced in Mexico for shipment to the US, there is no corporate tax on the export and no corresponding tax in the US on the Mexican export to the US. In effect, Ryan and Brady argue that this is a tremendous incentive to move manufacturing out of the United States to countries with value added taxes, such as Mexico, China, Canada, EU and many other countries.

Border adjustments serve as a way to level the playing field and alter value-added consumption taxes many countries, including European countries, Mexico, Canada and China, impose on each stage of production, as products are sold internationally. Proponents argue that the BAT is not trade policy and does not favor exports over imports. To see the companies that have VAT taxes in place, see the Ways and Means website at https://waysandmeans.house.gov/ending-made-america-tax-three-major- wins-american-people/.

The Trade War in the Administration on border adjustment taxes has become clear as Bannon, Navarro and others are in favor, but Cohn and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin are opposed. Wilbur Ross is on the fence. Trump himself has not taken a position.

On March 25th During a morning interview, Mnuchin said he had been overseeing work on the administration’s tax bill over the past two months and it would be introduced soon. He said the goal was still to win Congressional approval of the tax measure by August. But if the timeline is delayed, he said he expected the proposal to pass by the fall. Mnuchin did not reveal whether the administration will include the Border Adjustment tax.

On March 9th Bloomberg reported that the BAT is in deep trouble. The BAT is important because it is expected to raise more than $1 trillion in revenue, which would offset the cut to corporate tax rates:

Companies that rely heavily on exports, such as Boeing Co. and Oracle Corp., love the plan—for obvious reasons. Beyond profits, they also say a BAT would make American manufacturers more competitive by putting them on equal footing with foreign competitors around the world.

Importers hate the BAT. Big retailers such as Walmart Stores Inc. and Best Buy Co. contend that border adjustments will dent profit margins and force them to raise prices on everything from avocados and furniture to Nike shoes and French cheese. In a Feb. 28 letter to congressional leaders, the Americans for Affordable Products coalition said the tax would raise consumer costs “by as much as $1,700” in the first year. . . .

Companies are taking their message to consumers. In late February the National Retail Federation, which opposes the BAT, started airing TV commercials that parody an OxiClean infomercial, telling shoppers that “the all-new BAT tax is specially designed to make your disposable income—disappear!” Proponents, through the American Made Coalition that includes Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer Inc., launched a Twitter feed to support the tax. Both sides have created Facebook pages and websites with auto-form letters that viewers can send to Congress. Both, too, routinely pepper media outlets with press releases citing prominent people in the private sector and academia who either love or hate it.

As Bloomberg further states in Congress the BAT is running into opposition from Republicans:

A core group of House Republicans has come out in recent weeks against the BAT, citing the higher prices they’d inflict on consumers. Republican Senate support is in doubt, too. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Walmart’s home state of Arkansas, told a Senate floor session on Feb. 15 that border adjustments are “a theory wrapped in speculation inside a guess.” The next day, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said, “The hard reality is the border tax is on life support.”

But as Bloomberg further states:

“Ryan and Brady aren’t backing down. Without border adjustments, they say, their plan to rewrite the tax code can’t happen. That $1.1 trillion in revenue is crucial to the politics of the BAT, since it helps keep it deficit- neutral, a prerequisite for passing a tax bill through the Senate without Democratic votes. “What it boils down to is that it’s a way to pay for the rest of the tax plan,” says Veronique de Rugy, an economist at George Mason University. “Only revenue comes from this feature—economic growth doesn’t.” That $1 trillion is also crucial to how the BAT might affect the economy. Says Ross, “That is way too big a number to get wrong.”

EUROPE, THE WTO AND CHINA

Meanwhile, other countries are lining up to retaliate if the BAT is passed. On February 28th, it was reported that the EU is preparing a legal challenge against Donald Trump’s US border tax plan in what could be biggest trade dispute in a century. Jyrki Katainen, the European Commission’s Vice President, told the newspaper: “If someone is behaving against our interests or against international rules in trade then we have our own mechanisms to react.” He said the EU was seeking to avoid a potential trade war with the US as it would be “disastrous” for the world economy.

“We have all the legal arrangements within the EU but we are also part of global arrangements like the WTO and we want to respect the global rule base when it comes to trade.”

One WTO trade dispute expert estimated that a defeat in such a case could see around $385bn a year in trade retaliation against the US. Volker Kauder, parliamentary floor leader of Merkel’s conservatives, also recently stated:

“If Donald Trump imposes punitive tariffs on German and European products, then Europe should also impose punitive tariffs on U.S. products.”

Meanwhile, the Chinese government has been seeking advice from think tanks and policy advisers on how to retaliate against trade penalties imposed by the US. China’s strongest responses would likely include finding alternative suppliers of agricultural products, machinery and manufactured goods, and reducing the number of consumer goods like cellphones and laptops that it exports to the United States. Other possibilities could include levying a tax or other penalty on major U.S. companies that do business in China or restricting access to the country’s services sector.

NAFTA RENEGOTIATION

The first trade agreement, which the Trump Administration will negotiate is NAFTA. President Trump has already formally notified both Canada and Mexico that he intends to renegotiate NAFTA. The negotiations will probably start sometime this summer.

On March 12, 2017, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stated that the Trump administration has yet to determine what the trade agreement replacing NAFTA will look like. As Ross stated:

“One size doesn’t fit all. The issues of automotive are not the same as the issues of agriculture; they’re not the same as the issues of electronics, or steel. It’s a very, very complicated situation. So it’s very hard to paint just with one big broad brush.”

On March 16, 2017, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau stated:

“NAFTA’s been … improved a dozen times over the past 20 years. There’s always opportunities to talk about how we can make it better. It has led to a lot of great jobs for a whole lot of people on both sides of the border and I very much take him [Trump] at his word when he talks about just making a few tweaks. Because that’s what we’re always happy to do.

“We’ve got auto parts crisscrossing the border six times before they end up in a finished product. You’ve got over $2 billion a day going back and forth. So, making sure that the border is … secure but also smooth in its flow of goods and people is essential to good jobs on both sides of the border.”

Meanwhile, there are a number of meetings between US, Canadian and Mexican officials preparing for the NAFTA negotiations.

On March 21st, the Trump administration created the attached list, KEY ELEMENTS, of more than 20 foreign trade practices it would like to address in a renegotiation of NAFTA and in any bilateral trade deal it might pursue. The list includes relatively new areas like foreign currency manipulation, where achieving agreement could be difficult, but also a host of others like intellectual protection that have long been mainstays in U.S. trade agreements. Payne Griffin, deputy chief of staff at the Office of U.S. Trade Representative, stated:

“These are market problems that the administration has identified either through vigorous consultations with Congress or their own internal research. It is a non-exhaustive list of things that may be addressed in these bilateral trade agreements.”

CHINA NONMARKET ECONOMY

China has initiated a mandatory 60-day consultation period with both economies before deciding to request a dispute settlement panel to hear its complaint. China has now decided to only target the EU, which is in the process of trying to change antidumping methodology. Brussels is trying to come up with a new way of treating China under its trade remedy law while still recognizing that Beijing intervenes heavily in its economy.

The United States has said it would only consider a change in response to a formal request from China to be treated as a market economy, something it has not done since 2006.

Apparently, China is trying a strategy of ‘divide and conquer’. Take on the EU first, because it is already revising its law and they might get a good WTO decision, then face the tougher battle against the U.S.”

MORE TRADE CASES COMING

A law firm that specializes in bringing antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) trade cases recently told me that they are in the process of preparing a number of new cases against China and other countries. With a sympathetic Trump Administration and a very sympathetic Wilbur Ross as the new Secretary of Commerce, more cases are going to be filed.

ALUMINUM FOIL FROM CHINA

On March 9, 2017, the US Aluminum Foil Trade Enforcement Working Group, including Aleris Inc., Alpha Aluminum, Golden Aluminum, Granges Americas Inc., JW Aluminum Company, Novelis Corporation, Republic Foil Inc., Reynolds Consumer Products, and United Aluminum Corporation, filed major AD and CVD cases against more than $658 million of aluminum foil imports from China in 2016.

The petition alleges duties ranging from at a minimum of 38 percent to a high of 134 percent and targets 232 Chinese exporters and producers of aluminum foil. The aluminum foil covered by the complaint covers household aluminum foil as well as aluminum foil used in cookware, product packaging and heat exchangers found in cars and HVAC systems.

US importers can be liable for CVD duties on aluminum foil imports from China as soon as August 6, 2017 and AD duties on October 5, 2017.

Although the US industry may believe AD and CVD petitions will move the Chinese imports share to the US industry, that is not necessarily the case. Case in point, on March 8, 2016, Globe Specialty Metals Inc. filed major AD and CVD cases against imports of Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan and Norway. Chinese silicon metal has been under an AD order with shut out rates since 1991.

Attached are the relevant parts of the AD and CVD complaints along with a list of the targeted foreign exporters/producers and US importers, SMALL SILICON METAL PETITION.

The first hearing at the ITC is March 29th. Commerce will issue questionnaires probably in the first week of April. Commerce Department preliminary determinations in the Countervailing Duty cases, which is when liability for importers begins, can happen as soon as August.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me.

With a sympathetic Trump Administration in power, there will be a sharp rise in AD and CVD cases against China and other countries.

Previous newsletters stated Wilbur Ross has made it very clear to reach the 3% plus growth rate, the US must increase exports. Yet, at the same time, the Trump Administrations keeps concentrating on deficits and accusing foreign governments of treating US companies unfairly. Trump and his Administration do not look internally and try to find ways to make the US companies more competitive, which will not create a trade war.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program does not put up barriers to imports. Instead the TAA for Companies program works with US companies injured by imports to make them more competitive. The objective of TAA for Companies is to save the company and by saving the company it saves the jobs that go with that company.

In contrast to TAA for workers, TAAF or TAA for Companies is provided by the Economic Development Administration at the Commerce Department to help companies adjust to import competition before there is a massive lay-off or closure. Yet the program does not interfere in the market or restrict imports in any way.

Right now the total cost to the US Taxpayer for this nationwide program is $12.5 million dollars—truthfully peanuts in the Federal budget. Moreover, the Federal government saves money because if the company is saved, the jobs are saved and there are fewer workers to retrain and the saved company and workers end up paying taxes at all levels of government rather than being a drain on the Treasury.

As stated in my last blog post, TAA for Firms/Companies works. In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.nwtaac.org/, has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.mataac.org, uses a video, http://mataac.org/howitworks/, to show in detail how the program resulted in significant turnarounds for four companies. The reason the TAA for Firms/Companies is so successful—Its flexibility in working with companies on an individual basis to come up with a specific adjustment plan to make them competitive once again in the US market as it exists today. For a sample recovery plan, see http://mataac.org/documents/2014/06/sample-adjustment-plan.pdf, which has been developed specific to the strengths, weaknesses and threats each company faces.

But as also stated in my last blog post, in this environment with so many injured companies, funding for TAA for Firms/Companies has to be increased so it can do its job. Moreover, with the threats of a massive trade war in the air, which will injure all US companies and destroy US jobs, the US government needs to look at an alternative—TAA for Firms/Companies is that alternative.

FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES

UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES

With the election of Donald Trump, as stated in my last blog post, the Universal Trade War will continue. In addition to the US bringing AD and CVD cases, countries around the World, such as EC, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Thailand, South Africa, and Vietnam, all are filing antidumping and countervailing duty cases against each other and the United States. These countries have adopted the US law which finds dumping in 90% of the cases. The US and the EC have created a Frankenstein in the antidumping law and the whole World has adopted it.

Compromise is the best way to settle trade disputes, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to settle US antidumping and other trade cases. What is “fair” trade for the United States is “fair” trade for every other country. Many countries want to make their industries Great again.

Because of this situation, this part of the newsletter will concentrate on trade cases in other countries and how other countries see the trade problem with the United States. It will also discuss potential US exports that can be retaliation targets.

MEXICO

On March 6, 2017, Alexandro N. Gomez-Stozzi, a Mexican trade lawyer, at the Gardere firm in Mexico City sent me the following summary of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations in Mexico:

AD/CVD investigations in Mexico may take from 12 to 18 months as of the publication in the Diario Oficial regarding the initiation of investigation. Terms within the investigative process may be extended with cause, at the discretion of the authority. Investigations are generally conducted as follows (variation of a chart created by Mexican authorities):

There is a single investigating authority, the Ministry of Economy´s International Trade Practices Unit (known by its Spanish acronym UPCI, for Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales). UPCI makes all relevant findings: (i) dumping or countervailing, (ii) material injury or threat thereof and (iii) causation. Final AD/CVD orders are signed by the Minister of Economy; although informally, trade policy considerations in other sectors come into play before deciding to issue an AD/CVD order. UPCI is also in charge of safeguard investigations.

Investigations are usually requested by Mexican producers representing at least 25% of the total production, although UPCI may initiate investigations if it deems so appropriate.

Exporters and importers of affected goods are strongly encouraged to retain Mexican counsel, as all appearances have to be made in Spanish and a domestic service address has to be designated.

When issuing a preliminary determination, the authority may: (1) impose a preliminary AD/CVD duty and continue with investigation, (2) continue the investigation without an AD/CVD duty, or (3) terminate the investigation on insufficient evidence grounds.

In its final determination, the authority may (i) confirm or modify its preliminary determination to impose an AD/CVD duty, or (2) declare the investigation concluded without imposing an AD/CVD duty. Under stringent circumstances, final determinations may impose retroactive duties for up to three months from date of publication of the preliminary determination.

During the course of an investigation, Mexican law allows for interested parties to ask UPCI to convene conciliatory meetings, at which proposals may be presented to resolve the case and terminate the investigation. These proceedings coexist with Antidumping Agreement´s price undertakings.

AD/CVD orders remain in effect for 5 years. They may be renewed for similar periods when warranted after a sunset review which covers both dumping (or countervailing) and injury. Circumvention, actual coverage of AD/CVD orders, and similar proceedings can also be initiated as long as orders are in effect.

World Trade Organization (WTO)´s Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements are applied as is in Mexican investigation proceedings. Mexican trade-remedy law and regulations may sometimes be contradictory with WTO agreements; in case of conflict, the WTO Agreements would prevail in court.

CHINA AD/CVD NEWSLETTERS

Attached are newsletters from Chinese lawyer Roland Zhu and his trade group at the Allbright Law Office about Chinese trade law, Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.09.

CFIUS—WILL INVESTMENT RECIPROCITY BE A NEW REQUIREMENT??

There is movement within the United States to establish investment reciprocity as a criteria in investigations by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States into its national security reviews of inbound transactions, a policy shift that would weigh the heaviest on Chinese buyers if enacted.

Investment reciprocity — the idea that the U.S. should block a foreign entity’s investment in a particular industry when a U.S. buyer would be similarly blocked in that entity’s country — has been on politicians’ radar since before Donald Trump took office.

Trump made no secret of his leanings on the campaign trail, criticizing in particular a Chinese investment group’s acquisition of the 130-year-old Chicago Stock Exchange, a deal that has since been cleared by CFIUS.

If the U.S. does decide to go this route, there are at least a couple ways the government could go about it. The President could direct CFIUS to focus more heavily on particular industries or use a broader definition of national security, as long as those directives don’t stray too far from the regulations dictated by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, or FINSA. Congress can also amend FINSA to expand either the range of industries susceptible to national security review, or even expand the review itself from one focused solely on national security to a review that more broadly considers foreign investments in the U.S.

CHINESE MILITARY BUILDUP TO PROTECT ITS TRADE INTERESTS???

As mentioned in prior blog posts, there is a close relationship between defense/security and trade. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was created, in part, by the US naval embargo of Japan.

One of the strongest arguments for the Trans Pacific Partnership was the geo-political argument that the TPP would bring us closer to the Asian countries. Former defense secretary Ash Carter stated at one point that the TPP was equivalent to another US aircraft carrier.

On March 15, 2017, Malia Zimmerman for Fox News in an article entitled “China next US threat? Beijing beefs up military to protect trade”, stated:

With a laser-like focus on protecting its lifeblood – trade – China is dramatically altering its military operations, creating specialized teams that can protect its maritime resources, routes and territorial expansion plans. . . .

Harry Kazianis, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Defense Studies for The Center for the National Interest, stated:

“The great Achilles heel of China is trade—especially natural resources that come via sea and into its ports—and a big reason it will inevitably become a globally deployed military power. Beijing’s armed forces are working to slowly but surely reinforce and protect its overseas hubs as well as trade routes that move from Europe, the Middle East and Africa and into China’s territorial waters.”

ZTE HIT WITH SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING EXPORT CONTROLS ACT

On March 7, 2007, in a notice and judgement, which will be attached to my blog, judgment 3-22, ZTE Corporation Agrees to Plead Guilty and Pay Over $430, the US Justice Department announced that ZTE Corp, has agreed to plead guilty and pay a combined a penalty of $1.1.9 billion for violating U.S. sanctions by sending U.S.-origin items to Iran. As the Justice Department notice states:

ZTE Corporation has agreed to enter a guilty plea and to pay a $430,488,798 penalty to the U.S. for conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by illegally shipping U.S.-origin items to Iran, obstructing justice and making a material false statement. ZTE simultaneously reached settlement agreements with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). In total ZTE has agreed to pay the U.S. Government $892,360,064. The BIS has suspended an additional $300,000,000, which ZTE will pay if it violates its settlement agreement with the BIS. . . .

“ZTE Corporation not only violated export controls that keep sensitive American technology out of the hands of hostile regimes like Iran’s – they lied to federal investigators and even deceived their own counsel and internal investigators about their illegal acts,” said Attorney General Sessions. “This plea agreement holds them accountable, and makes clear that our government will use every tool we have to punish companies who would violate our laws, obstruct justice and jeopardize our national security. . . .”

“ZTE engaged in an elaborate scheme to acquire U.S.-origin items, send the items to Iran and mask its involvement in those exports. The plea agreement alleges that the highest levels of management within the company approved the scheme. ZTE then repeatedly lied to and misled federal investigators, its own attorneys and internal investigators. Its actions were egregious and warranted a significant penalty,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General McCord. “The enforcement of U.S. export control and sanctions laws is a major component of the National Security Division’s commitment to protecting the national security of the United States. Companies that violate these laws – including foreign companies – will be investigated and held to answer for their actions.”

“ZTE Corporation not only violated our export control laws but, once caught, shockingly resumed illegal shipments to Iran during the course of our investigation,” said U.S. Attorney Parker. “ZTE Corporation then went to great lengths to devise elaborate, corporate-wide schemes to hide its illegal conduct, including lying to its own lawyers.”

“The plea agreement in this case shows ZTE repeatedly violated export controls and illegally shipped U.S. technology to Iran,” said Assistant Director Priestap. “The company also took extensive measures to hide what it was doing from U.S. authorities. This case is an excellent example of cooperation among multiple

U.S. agencies to uncover illegal technology transfers and make those responsible pay for their actions.”

The plea agreement, which is contingent on the court’s approval, also requires ZTE to submit to a three- year period of corporate probation, during which time an independent corporate compliance monitor will review and report on ZTE’s export compliance program. ZTE is also required to cooperate fully with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding any criminal investigation by U.S. law enforcement authorities. . . .”

According to David Laufman, chief of the counterintelligence and export control section at the DOJ’s National Security Division, it was “extraordinarily difficult” to obtain key documents and witnesses located in China until on March 7, 2016, the Commerce decision to add ZTE to the so-called Entity List. According to Laufman, “The game-changing event in this case, was the Commerce Department’s decision to pursue an entity listing of ZTE, demonstrating the efficacy of the whole-of- government approach” to national security.

Companies end up on the Entity List after Commerce determines they are tied to illicit weapons programs, terrorism or other national security threats, and thereafter can’t trade with U.S. companies without a special dispensation from the agency.

This may be the first case in which the Commerce Department has used an Entity List designation to force a foreign company to cooperate in a probe. Commerce will probably start using this strategy in future investigations.

SECTION 337 AND IP CASES

DOMESTIC INDUSTRY FROM PATENT LICENSEE

On March 8, 2017, the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued the attached interesting decision, 2 PAGEONE PAGE DI, in the Section 337 case Certain Silicon-On-Insulator Wafers. In that decision, the ITC Administrative Law Judge determined that it could find a domestic industry in a Section 337 if the US patent licensee’s activities show domestic activity. Even though the patent holder was a non-practicing entity, the ALJ determined:

Silicon Genesis Corporation (“SiGen”), has established contingently a domestic industry in the United States through the activities of its licensee, SunEdison Semiconductor Limited (“SunEdison”) . . . through its licensee, SunEdison, SiGen has proven by a preponderance of evidence that it has made a significant domestic investment in plant and equipment, in capital and labor, and a substantial investment in research and development to produce certain silicon-on-insulator (“SOI”) products at issue in this Investigation.

The decision did not break new ground, but it reminds nonpracticing entities, (“NPEs”) that one way to meet the domestic industry requirement under Section 337 is through the actions of patent licensee in the United States.

If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump and Trade, border adjustment taxes, US trade policy, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, trade adjustment assistance, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law, please feel free to contact me.

This blog post contains several articles about recent developments in the Trump Transition and its impact on trade. January 20th, inauguration day, is only 8 days away and Trump will be President. The transition, however, moves quickly.

Although the past appointments of Governor Branstad of Iowa as Ambassador to China and Wilbur Ross to Commerce, two persons who know China well, indicate no potential trade war, the two latest appointments of Bob Lighthizer to USTR and Peter Nararro as Chairman of the National Economic Advisors indicate that protectionism, especially against China, is back on the menu.

Trump may be trying to use uncertainty to create leverage and a deal with the Chinese and other governments on trade and other topics. Bob Lighthizer will be the hammer of the Trump trade policy that will negotiate those deals.

But the next question is how will Trump help revive manufacturing in the United States and help the Rust Belt states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, which put him in the White House?

One answer may be taxes, the border adjustment kind, which may, in fact, be a response to the Value Added Taxes levied on US exports. Trump and Congress have apparently decided to fight fire with fire—mercantilism to fight mercantilism, border adjustment taxes to fight value added taxes, which put US exports at a major disadvantage.

No longer will the US take a passive approach to foreign trade barriers to US exports. Trump and his team will raise US trade barriers to counter the trade barriers erected by other countries. Reciprocity is the name of the game.

Moreover, the recent noises from many US companies indicate that they like what Trump is doing and manufacturing will move back to the US. Low corporate taxes, less regulations and the threat of trade barriers will bring manufacturing back to the US. In fact, it may even encourage Chinese and other foreign companies to move production to the United States. Trump will do everything possible to increase jobs in the United States.

Also the US China Trade relationship is getting out to an interesting start in 2017 with the filing today, January 12, 2017, of a major WTO case against China on Aluminum.

Hopefully Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, which is the only effective US trade remedy that saves companies and the jobs that go with them, will expand. But TAA for Companies is not TAA for Workers. They are very different programs.

In addition, with regards to the recent WTO complaint China filed against the US and the EC for failing to give it market economy status under their antidumping and countervailing duty laws, Canada and Japan have now jumped into the case because of the impact on their trade laws.

Under the Universal Trade War theme, attached are newsletters from Roland Zhu of the Allbright Chinese law firm on Chinese trade law.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

PS, If anyone wants to unsubscribe to the newsletter, please let me know and I will remove them from the list.

TRADE AND TRADE POLICY

TRUMP’S APPOINTMENTS NOW BECOME MORE PROTECTIONIST AND TOUGH ON TRADE—BUT MAYBE THAT IS WHAT IS NEEDED IN THIS ENVIRONMENT

After the first two appointments of Governor Branstad as ambassador to China and Wilbur Ross as new Commerce Department secretary, the two recent appointments of Bob Lighthizer as United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) and China critic, Peter Navarro, to head the National Trade Council indicate that the Trump Administration will take a much tougher line on trade and China. Full disclosure in the late 1980s, as described more below, I worked for Bob Lighthizer at Skadden, Arps, and he is certainly a much tougher negotiator than any trade negotiator China or other countries have dealt with before.

Recently on Bloomberg news, I heard one bank spokesman say that their research group gives a 25% chance that under Trump the US will return to a Smoot Hawley situation, such as in the 1930s. Although Lighthizer is a very tough guy, he is also a very experienced trade lawyer with substantial contacts in Congress so hopefully he will be pragmatic enough not to simply put up the protectionist walls and return the US to the 1930s.

But let there be no mistake, the Trump Administration will erect barriers to imports to offset the many trade barriers other countries, including Mexico, China and the EC, have erected against US exports. Reciprocity will be the new approach to trade policy.

USTR FROMAN ADDS A PARTING SHOT

As present USTR Froman of the Obama Administration is leaving, he issued on January 5, 2017 the attached Cabinet Exit Memo, USTR-Exit-Memo. In that Cabinet Exit Memo, Froman stated that the United States cannot withdraw from Globalization. The issue is whether the US can shape globalization so as to benefit the US. Froman also warned that if the US withdraws, the major beneficiary will be China. As Froman stated:

“The fundamental economic question of our time is not whether we can stop globalization, but whether we can use all the tools at our disposal to shape globalization in a way that helps the majority of Americans, and reflects not just our economic interests, but our values.”

Froman went on to emphasize the importance of Agreements, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”):

“These agreements offer a positive vision for American leadership in the global economy. This vision is vitally important, because in the absence of U.S. guidance and leadership, the world is likely to turn to alternative policy models that will put the United States at a permanent disadvantage.”

Froman went on to argue that the US can only counter China through negotiations that set high standards for the World’s trading countries:

“If we step back from a global leadership role, it will be our loss and China’s gain. This alternative vision would place a large portion of America’s industry at risk of lost exports and create powerful incentives to invest in Asia in order to sell in Asia. Should this alternative come to dominate the next generation of trade agreements, the consequence will be an erosion of economic security and opportunity for all Americans.”

Froman apparently is arguing that the trade game cannot be changed and only small changes can be made through negotiations, such as the TPP, because globalization is here to stay. Trump intends to overturn the trade policy table all together.

TRUMP PICKS AN ENFORCER ROBERT LIGHTHIZER AS NEXT UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE (“USTR”)

On January 3, 2017 Donald Trump announced that he has picked a very tough negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, a Skadden, Arps partner, as the next United States Trade Representative (“USTR”). In doing so, Trump stated:

“Ambassador Lighthizer is going to do an outstanding job representing the United States as we fight for good trade deals that put the American worker first. He has extensive experience striking agreements that protect some of the most important sectors of our economy, and has repeatedly fought in the private sector to prevent bad deals from hurting Americans. He will do an amazing job helping turn around the failed trade policies which have robbed so many Americans of prosperity.”

Almost 20 years ago, I worked with Lighthizer in the late 1980s at Skadden, Arps. Before joining Skadden, Arps, Lighthizer was a Deputy USTR and was legendary. One of my colleagues at Skadden told me that as a Deputy USTR when Lighthizer was negotiating with the Japanese government on a trade deal, he took one proposal from the Japanese government, folded it into a paper airplane and threw it out the door.

After Lighthizer joined Skadden in the late 1980s, Lighthizer brought in US Steel as a client and went on to represent US Steel for decades bringing many antidumping and countervailing duty cases against steel products from various countries. Being the former Chief of Staff to Senator Robert Dole, the former Senate Majority leader, Lighthizer has extremely good contacts with the Republicans in Congress.

From my personal experience with Lighthizer, he will be an extremely tough negotiator with an agenda of protecting US companies from import competition and he will not be a friend of China, but that may be a good thing. In contrast to the tough approach on trade of President Trump, Lighthizer may be the best choice free traders could get. Lighthizer is a very experienced trade lawyer, who is not an ideologue, but a pragmatic deal maker.

More importantly, Trump’s appointment of an experienced tough trade lawyer as the USTR indicates that Trump does not really want a trade war. He wants better, tougher deals more in line with US interests, such as a renegotiated NAFTA and possibly even a renegotiated TPP. Trump is seeking to hire one of Washington’s top trade lawyers to negotiate tougher international trade agreements and then enforce them more vigorously. Lighthizer, in effect, will be the hammer of Trump’s trade policy.

The desire for a much tougher trade policy is bipartisan. Many Democratic lawmakers agree with Trump and many Republicans on a tougher trade policy. On January 3rd, AFL-CIO President, Richard Trumka met with nine House Democrats to urge renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada and stating that he does not think Trump “has enough Republican support to do it, and rewriting the rules of trade is a necessary first step in righting the economy for working people.”

In response to the appointment, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who knows Lighthizer very well and will hold hearings on his nomination, stated:

“Ensuring our past, present, and future trade agreements are the best possible deals for American workers and job creators is a shared goal supported by pro- trade lawmakers and the Trump Administration alike. As the incoming administration undertakes this enormous responsibility, Bob will be a critical player in ensuring that America’s trade agenda reflects U.S. commercial interests, while helping set the standard for global trade. Armed with bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority, the incoming Trump Administration has a unique opportunity to pursue new, bilateral trade pacts of the highest caliber that can be submitted to Congress for an up or down vote with no amendments. As the world and our economic competitors move to expand their global footprints, we can’t afford to be left behind in securing strong deals that will increase access to new markets for American-made products and services, protect our intellectual property rights abroad, and ensure domestic businesses can successfully compete in the 21st century global economy. I look forward to a vigorous discussion of Bob’s trade philosophy and priorities when he comes before the Finance Committee.”

Bill Brock, the former USTR under President Reagan, stated:

“He is in most ways, if not many ways, in line with Trump’s comments during the campaign. He’s very bright, he’s very aggressive.”

There was speculation prior to the Lighthizer appointment that USTR would take a secondary role in trade negotiations. In fact, Lighthizer’s appointment indicates that Trump wants to make USTR under Lighthizer’s leadership the tip of sword in changing and negotiating tough trade agreements and enforcing them. Of Trump’s trade advisors, only Lighthizer has government experience.

Alan Wolff, another former senior American trade official who represented the steel industry as co- counsel in many trade cases with Lighthizer, referred to Lighthizer’s broad knowledge of trade law and went on to state:

“Those who say U.S.T.R. will be subordinated to other agencies are mistaken. He’ll be a dominant figure on trade, in harmony with Wilbur Ross and Navarro.”

Lighthizer’s appointment is a clear indication that the Trump Administration will focus on the enforcement of trade agreements and on the letter of the law. Lighthizer is not a bull in a China shop. He is a very smart, tough trade lawyer and negotiator, and he will do everything possible to protect the US industry.

Misjudging Incentives for Industries to Shift Production Wholesale to China and then Ship Back to the United States. . . . In other words, supporters assumed that since the United States had been granting MFN status to China for decades, granting MFN on a permanent basis would make no significant difference to how companies would serve this market.

But this assumption failed to account for the many incentives Western companies had to bet on the other side, and use China as a manufacturing platform to serve the U.S. market. As shown throughout this paper, China practices numerous forms of mercantilism – including subsidies, currency manipulation, and government programs that encourage developing new products in China – that give companies strong reasons to move production to that country. China’s relatively weak labor and environmental policies have a similar effect. China also manipulates raw material markets in a manner that encourages manufacturers to move there. . . .

Many experts agree that our trading relationship with China presents a serious threat to our economy and the effective functioning of the WTO. How should U.S. policymakers respond to these problems? As described in more detail below, I believe they should stop being so passive, take a number of straightforward steps to mitigate the harm caused by Chinese mercantilism, and consider more imaginative steps to deal with China.

We must stop being so passive. For ten years now, U.S. policymakers have done very little as China pursued policies that have resulted in an enormous trade imbalance. This approach has not worked, and it is past time for the U.S. government to become more aggressive. . . .

Lighthizer went on to state:

Indeed, I would take the argument even further. Trade policy discussions in the United States have increasingly been dominated by arcane disputations about whether various actions would be “WTO ­consistent” – treating this as a mantra of almost religious or moral significance. The fact is that the WTO is built upon a framework of mutual concessions and purported mutual benefits from expanded trade and open markets. WTO commitments are not religious obligations, do not (and should not be construed to) impinge upon national sovereignty, and are not subject to coercion by some WTO police force. Viewing them as such – and implicitly establishing this viewpoint as the inviolate touchstone of all U.S. trade policy – is at odds with the structure of the WTO itself, not to mention the vociferous and repeated statements made by proponents of the WTO when it was established.

In this regard, WTO commitments represent mutually beneficial, market ­opening stipulations by individual countries. Where a country fails to fully implement commitments it has made, other countries are given the right to reciprocally suspend market­ opening commitments of their own – in an amount precisely equivalent to, and no greater than, the value of trade they have lost as a result of the derogation that has occurred. In this way, the entire WTO system is in a very real sense premised upon the assumption of relatively equal costs and benefits among and between WTO participants – whereby compliance with WTO norms is encouraged by the knowledge that derogations will result in the suspension of equivalent trade concessions. Where this relationship does not hold – that is, where a trade relationship has become so unbalanced that the threat of retaliation pales in comparison to the potential benefits of derogation – it only makes sense that a sovereign nation would consider what options are in its own national interest (up to and including potential derogation from WTO stipulations).

This need not be seen as some fundamental threat to the integrity of the WTO system. Indeed, let me state explicitly that I am not advocating that the United States leave the WTO – that body is too important to us and the global trading system. I am merely pointing out that derogation may be a common sense, economically rational analysis by participants in the system – whereby potential decisions to derogate from WTO rules give rise to compensatory rights of other parties within the system.

Indeed, such an approach is plainly anticipated by the WTO agreements and has been acknowledged by U.S. policymakers. Properly understood, WTO rules do not infringe on the ability of individual nations to make their own sovereign decisions about economic policies –subject to the rights and obligations that flow from the WTO agreements themselves and any derogation of those agreements. In this regard, U.S. officials have consistently stated that WTO commitments do not interfere with our national sovereignty, and that WTO rulings cannot alter U.S. law. These points were made repeatedly by Members of Congress during the debate over whether the United States should join the WTO. Furthermore, USTR has plainly stated that WTO legal panels “have no authority to change U.S. law or to require the United States or any state or local government to change its laws or decisions.” USTR has specifically explained that other countries cannot force the United States to comply with WTO law; instead, their only available response is to retaliate by withdrawing trade benefits . . .

In the context of U.S. ­China trade – whereby the United States is consistently running trade deficits viewed by virtually all rational observers as catastrophic and unsustainable – it is certainly advisable to consider all options available. To the extent that the United States were to consider more dramatic action to address the problem – such as tariffs or quantitative limitations that would arguably derogate from WTO commitments – the prospect of reciprocal denial of trade benefits by China must of course be assessed. At some point, however – where goods imports from China exceed $300 billion while U.S. exports to China are below $70 billion – one must ask whether potential retaliation from China really would or could even remotely offset the benefits to the United States of more aggressive trade measures. . . .

Of course, none of the policies I have suggested can be effective unless U.S. policymakers have the will to implement them in a strong and determined manner. For years, our economic position vis ­a ­vis China has deteriorated because U.S. policymakers have refused to take the inevitable risks associated with challenging Chinese mercantilism. As a result, we are now burdened with a trade imbalance that everyone agrees is unsustainable. Wringing our hands and hoping for the best is not the answer. We need strong leaders who are prepared to make tough decisions, and who will not be satisfied until this crisis has been resolved.

“One must ask whether potential retaliation from China really would or could even remotely offset the benefits to the United States of more aggressive trade measures.”

On the other hand, although Lighthizer’s statements show that he will be very tough on China, as certain trade experts have stated, in light of the very tough trade policy of the next President Donald Trump, Lighthizer’s appointment may be the best that free traders could hope for from this new Administration. Lighthizer is a very smart, experienced political operator with excellent contacts in Congress, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, and a tough, outstanding negotiator. But these experts also believe that Lighthizer is not a blind ideologue, but a pragmatic, rational deal maker. After driving a very hard bargain and reaching a deal, he could end up even keeping NAFTA and possibly even the TPP. Relations with China may actually improve, but only after a better deal is reached.

PETER NAVARRO TO HEAD NATIONAL TRADE COUNCIL

In another sign that the Trump Administration will take a much tougher line on China, on December 21, 2016, Trump announced that he has picked Peter Navarro, a China critic, to be the head of a new National Trade Council. A Harvard trained economist, who is a professor at the University of California, Irvine, Navarro has taken a very strong position on China. He is the author of a book, “Death by China”, which became a 2012 documentary film in which a Chinese knife stabs a map of the United States causing blood to throw. See http://deathbychina.com/. Navarro, in effect, argues that China is waging an economic war by subsidizing exports to the United States and blocking imports into China creating an enormous trade deficit.

Trump has stated that he will persuade China to change its policies by applying pressure through trade laws, designating China a currency manipulator, and, if necessary imposing high tariffs on Chinese imports. As indicated below, however, those tariffs may actually be border adjustment taxes.

In a statement, Mr. Trump described Mr. Navarro as “a visionary economist” and said he would “develop trade policies that shrink our trade deficit, expand our growth and help stop the exodus of jobs from our shores.”

On December 23, 2016, in response the China Daily stated:

That individuals such as Navarro who have a bias against China are being picked to work in leading positions in the next administration, is no laughing matter. The new administration should bear in mind that with economic and trade ties between the world’s two largest economies now the closest they have ever been, any move to damage the win-win relationship will only result in a loss for both sides.

Still, Chinese companies in the US should be on high alert to a more difficult business climate.

US TRADE POLICY MAY CHANGE AND THREATS DO NOT HELP THE US CHINA TRADE RELATIONSHIP

There is an old saying in Chinese “Bei Mi Yang Feng You Dou Mi Yang Chao Ren” (杯米养朋友，斗米养仇人) one cup of rice makes a friend, thousands of cups of rice make an enemy. Another old saying in English, give a person $5 make a friend, give a person $100 make an enemy.

Since World War II the United States has been a relatively open market and many foreign countries, including China, have benefitted. As described more below, with border adjustment taxes and the current US economic situation, that situation may well change and could change dramatically. Many countries will be very upset when the US starts to close down, in effect, favoring domestic products over imports. When markets are taken away and countries lose their bag of rice, they will not be happy.

Mexico’s peso is in free fall and has fallen to the lowest level against the US in decades. Mexico is in crisis because under pressure from Trump US companies are canceling plans to set up production facilities in Mexico and moving production facilities back to the US. Mexico is not happy.

China is upset with the Lighthizer appointment and is talking about retaliation. On January 4th, in response to the Lighthizer appointment, China’s state-run Media, the Global Times, warned Trump of ‘Big Sticks’ if he seeks a Trade War:

“There are flowers around the gate of China’s Ministry of Commerce, but there are also big sticks hidden inside the door — they both await Americans.”

When a current US China trade deficit of well over $300 billion, however, that threat rings hollow.

On January 9, 2017, State-run Chinese tabloid Global Times warned U.S. President-elect Donald Trump that China would “take revenge” if he reneged on the one- China policy, only hours after Taiwan’s president made a controversial stopover in Houston.

When the Chinese State-Controlled media, such as the Global Times, castigates Trump as an “ignorant child” and threatens the Trump Administration with Chinese retaliation, it is waving a red flag in front of a bull. The new Trump Administration will not be intimidated. It will not be bullied. Threats will not work with this Administration.

So it is a much better idea to let cooler heads prevail and negotiate. As stated above, the Trump Administration wants a deal and the Chinese government and other governments are extremely good negotiators so negotiate.

Let’s keep any Trade War at the cold war stage and not let it break out into a hot Trade War where every country, including the United States and China, are burned.

BORDER ADJUSTMENT TAXES MAY BE THE NEW TRADE PROTECTIONIST BARRIER TO IMPORTS

As stated in my last blog post, Trump and Republicans in Congress may be creating an alternative to tariffs to spur US manufacturing and that is taxes. Tariffs have become so passé. There is now an attempt in Congress to give American-made products a big tax advantage over their foreign competitors through border adjustment taxes, and, in effect, counter the value added taxes used in other countries to deter imports.

The key issue is a plan to fundamentally remake the tax system by taxing US companies based on where they sell their goods, not where the business happens to be located. As part of that, Republican tax legislators want to include what experts call “border adjustments” — new taxes on imports as well as tax rebates on exports.

Another fancy term for this new tax is “destination-based cash flow tax with border adjustment” or DBCFT. This plan would replace the current corporate tax code with something known among experts as a “border-adjustable, destination-based” tax system. Under their proposal, imports would be charged the same 20 percent tax that domestic companies would face. Exports would be excused from taxes. It would amount to a fundamental change, with the government taxing companies based on where they sell their wares, rather than where the business is located.

The way this tax would work is if a U.S. company sold a product for $100 and it spent $70 on its workers’ pay, under the Republican plan the remaining $30 would be subject to the 20% tax. That would produce a $6 tax bill. An imported version of the same product would be forced to pay the 20% tax on the entire $100 sale, producing a $20 tax bill.

If America’s competitors were intentionally trying to design a tax system to destroy the American economy, they probably couldn’t come up with a dumber tax system than the way the United States currently taxes our own businesses.

To fully appreciate the stupidity of the American corporate tax, consider this simple example:

If you are an American company making cars in Michigan, you have to pay a 35% profits tax on the car made here and then if the car is sold across the border to Mexico, the Mexicans slap a 16% value added tax on the car, so it is taxed on both sides of the border. Almost all countries tax goods produced in the United States this way.

Now let us say that the auto factory is moved from Michigan to Mexico City. Now the car produced in the factory in Mexico is not taxed by the Mexicans if the auto is sold in the United States.

Even more amazing: the U.S. imposes no tax on the imported car. To summarize, the car is taxed twice if it is built in America and then sold abroad and never taxed if it is built abroad and sold here in the U.S. And we wonder why companies are moving out in droves for China, India, Ireland, Mexico and the like.

Donald Trump is right. What we have in America is not free trade. It is stupid trade with the deck sacked against American producers and workers. Our federal tax is effectively a 35% tariff imposed on our own goods and services.

It doesn’t help matters that our 35% rate is the highest in the industrial world. Yet the corporate tax- despite being onerous and complex — and despite depressing employment, investment and wages here at home — raises very little revenue for the government. . . .

To create a level playing field, the U.S. has to reconstitute our tax system. This can be accomplished by lowering the tax rate and then turning the tax on its head so we are taxing our imports, but not our exports. In other words, we should tax activities based on where they are consumed, not where they are produced.

This is called a border adjustable tax system, and here are the reasons we need to do it:

A border adjustable tax will end all talk of tariffs and trade wars.

tariffs violate our trade agreements and often lead to retaliatory measures by other countries. The free traders will rightly object loudly to these trade barriers.

A better solution is to impose the Trump 15% corporate income tax on goods when they are brought into the U.S. and exempt from tax goods produced in the U.S. but sold outside the U.S.

In other words, our corporate tax would be based on where goods are consumed, not on where they are produced. This tax does not violate trade laws and only mirrors the valued added tax systems foreigners use to gain advantage over us. . . .

In exchange for a border adjustable tax, the U.S. should eliminate all existing tariffs and duties which can now range from 2% on shoes to 25% on toys. . .

Retailers like Walmart will complain . . .

We have to make things in America to make America great again. Tax reform is the key to making that happen.

In effect, taxes, whether border adjustment or value added, have become the new tariffs. But if one is to look at it rationally, tariffs were always taxes. In fact, after the American Revolution, the first tax the US Government used to run the government was tariffs on imported goods.

The fact that border adjustment taxes will hurt retailers is evidenced by Trump’s criticism of large internet retailer Amazon when he stated that Amazon will have “such problems” during his Presidency because of this new tax system. Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon also owns the Washington Post, and that newspaper has not been Trump’s friend.

The argument against the DBCFT is made by Brian Garst in the attached article, CFP_PolicyBrief_Border_Adjustment, entitled the “Political and Economic Risks of a Destination-Based Cash Flow Tax,” published in January 2017. In the Article, Brian Garst argues:

The DBCFT would be a new type of corporate income tax that disallows any deductions for imports while also exempting export-related revenue from taxation. This mercantilist system is based on the same “destination” principle as European value-added taxes, which means it is explicitly designed to preclude tax competition. . . . This mercantilist approach typically is associated with credit-invoice value-added taxes (VATs) that exist in European nations.

Garst goes on to state that in addition to retailers another target industry is energy because the United States is a net importer of oil and petroleum products. Trump might argue, however, that when he is done cutting regulations the United States will be a net exporter of oil and petroleum products. But Garst also points out that when other countries adopt the DBCFT, there will be more taxes on US exports.

More importantly, Garst points out what happens when the Democrats come back into power:

“In this case, left-leaning politicians would see the DBCFT not as something to be undone, but as a jumping off point for new and higher taxes. A highly probable outcome is that the United States’ corporate tax environment becomes more like Europe, consisting of both consumption and income taxes.”

Garst goes on to add that the eventual result of higher taxes, no matter what they are called, is bigger government and slower economic growth.

On December 19, 2016, however, Chairman Brady of House Ways and Means stated that U.S. companies that rely on imports will “have to adjust” to a House Republican plan and that such a plan is a priority of the Trump Administration. As Brady stated on a December 18th CSPAN program:

“We cannot leave in place any tax policies that encourage our companies to move their operations overseas just to sell back to the United States. We want to listen to and find solutions with those who rely a lot on imported goods coming into America.”

The plan would apply a 20 percent corporate tax to revenues earned from goods and services consumed within the United States, while exempting economic activity outside the U.S, amounting to a 15 percent cut in the nominal corporate tax rate and eliminating corporate taxes on U.S. exports.

The opposition to this new tax system is not only from retailers but from US producers, which either assemble products in the US from imported parts or use cheaper raw materials to produce competitive value added products. Many manufacturing groups that rely on global supply chains, such as Boeing and other companies, should be very concerned about this new policy.

But the border adjustment tax proposal has allowed Trump to call out automobile companies, such as GM, which produce substantial cars in Mexico and praise Ford Motor Co. for its decision to scrap plans for a $1.6 billion factory in Mexico. The threat of a border adjustment tax is enough during this Presidential transition period to cause US companies to bring production back to the US.

Many businesses that rely on imported raw materials or component parts, will not be able to deduct the cost of imported goods under the GOP plan, the full value of these goods is taxed instead of just the value added in the U.S. This means that even if Congress lowers the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to the Republicans’ proposed 20% or 15%, companies could still see an effective increase in their tax rates.

Jennifer Safavian, the executive vice president of government affairs at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, recently made this point stating:

“With this tax on imports, we actually will see our effective tax rate increase. It will increase, in some cases, double or three times the amount we’re paying right now. Some companies are concerned that they will actually have to go out of business because they’ll owe more in taxes than they’ll actually bring in in income.”

COULD MANUFACTURING RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES?

As stated above, during just this Presidential transition period, the threat of border adjustment taxes and a dramatic change in trade policy, along with cuts to corporate taxes to as low as 15 to 25% and regulations rollback, has caused many companies, such as Ford, Softbank, Fiat, Sprint and Carrier, to announce their reduction or abandonment of offshore production and their movement back to the United States. Jack Ma at Alibaba also met with Trump to state that he believes 1 million more jobs can be added in the US from small and medium size business.

In December 2016, small business optimism in the United States has soared to levels not seen in over ten years. The National Federation of Independent Business Index jumped 7.4 points in December the highest since 2004. Trump and Congress are using carrots and sticks to move US production and jobs back to the United States.

With almost 40% of the US population on some form of welfare, the situation has to change. Even here in Seattle, one dramatic example of the state of economy during the Obama Administration has been the dramatic rise in homeless camps. The election of Trump means change. And change it will be.

Recently, a Chinese entrepreneur asked me how could manufacturing move from China back to the United States because China has so many advantages. In October 2016, Fuyao Glass announced a $1 billion investment into Moraine Ohio and Plymouth Michigan to start producing windshields in the United States. When Chinese media and the government asked the owner Cho Tak Wong why he was moving production to the United States. There were two answers: higher wages in China and higher tax rates.

Wages in China have steadily moved upward and the lower wage countries now are Vietnam, Bangladesh and other countries. Much of China’s textile manufacturing capability has moved to Bangladesh in the search of lower wages.

Another major problem in China is taxes. Although the US has the highest corporate tax rate of 35% in the developed countries, higher than China, China has corporate tax rates ranging from 25 to 33%. More importantly, China has a personal income tax rate of 45% with US tax rates for the highest incomes ranging from 35 to 39.6%.

When I started working in China in the 1990s and all the way until about 5 to 10 years ago, although the tax rates were high, the Chinese government was very liberal on deductions. The more expenses the company and the person had, the lower the actual tax rate. Thus Chinese employees were always looking for a “fapiao”, a receipt so that they could claim expenses.

But several years ago, the Chinese government cracked down and started to enforce the actual tax rates. High tax rates give companies and individuals a real incentive to leave the place where they are located. Residents vote with their feet. We can see that in the United States, where high tax rates in the states of New York and California have caused companies and people to move to lower tax states like Texas and Washington State, which has no state personal income tax. An old economic saying, when you tax more of anything, you get less of it.

China and the United States are competing with other countries to attract foreign investment and even domestic investment in their own countries. Higher tax rates and excessive regulations cause companies to move and seek better places to produce products.

Another reason to move to another country is trade restrictions. In the early 2000s, Windshields from China were hit with a US antidumping case. I represented two companies in the case, Xinhe and Benxun; Fuyao was represented by another law firm. Antidumping rates in this case went down to single digits and eventually the case went away. But this does not mean a new case could not be brought.

Fuyao coming to the US to escape potential US trade cases is nothing new. Many, many Japanese companies, including automobile companies, Toyota and Honda, auto part companies, such as Nippon Denso, television producers, such as Sanyo, portable electric typewriter companies, such as Brother, and photography companies, such as Fuji, set up production operations in the United States to get around US antidumping orders and other trade restrictions. In fact, Chinese solar companies, such as Wanxiang Energy, have started producing solar panels in the United States to get around move US antidumping and countervailing duty orders against Chinese solar cells and solar panels.

So manufacturing can move back to the United States if the business environment is better than other countries. When companies move back to the US and economic growth increases significantly, all boats rise and that means more good paying jobs and the average American will do better.

In my blog post last month, an open letter to the new Commerce Department secretary was included about the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program. It is important, however, to distinguish TAA for Companies from TAA for Workers. The two programs are very different.

TAA for Workers is government money given to displaced workers to retrain workers. On January 12, 2017, Jamie Dimon of Chase spoke out on Good Morning American about TAA for Workers. In the past when Dimon has spoken out for TAA for Workers, financial publications, such as Forbes, have spoken out against the program because they view the $711 million program as an entitlement, a handout to workers, that does not save jobs.

The TAA for Firms/Companies program, however, is very different from the TAA for Workers program because the objective of TAA for Companies is to save the company and by saving the company save the jobs that go with that company. I believe that publications, like Forbes, might change their tune if they knew that President Reagan probably personally approved the TAA for Firms/Companies program. Why do I say this? Jim Munn.

Congress started the TAA adjustment assistance programs in 1962 as part of the Trade Expansion Act and as a means of securing support for the Kennedy Round of multilateral trade negotiations. Trade Adjustment Assistance essentially was a tradeoff. If Unions and Workers would support trade liberalization, including free trade agreements, workers would be compensated because of the disruption caused by increased imports.

In the early 1980s, President Reagan himself put in requirements to set up standards so that Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers would not simply be an open ended entitlement. President Reagan, however, was puzzled by the TAA for Companies and asked an old friend, Jim Munn, here in Seattle to look into the program.

As stated in the attached 2002 obituary, JIM MUNN, Jim Munn was a famous criminal lawyer in Seattle and an early supporter and personal friend of Ronald Reagan. I am now on the Board of Directors of the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (“NWTAAC”). When I started my involvement in NWTAAC, I was told that the Center was in place because President Reagan himself asked Jim Munn to look into the program.

Both President Reagan and Jim Munn were firmly opposed to government interference in the marketplace. What did Jim Munn discover when he looked into the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Companies? It works. Jim Munn decided to head up NWTAAC for the next 22 years.

In contrast to TAA for workers, TAAF or TAA for Companies is provided by the Commerce Department to help companies adjust to import competition before there is a massive lay-off or closure. Yet the program does not interfere in the market or restrict imports in any way.

Right now the total cost to the US Taxpayer for this nationwide program is $12.5 million dollars—truthfully peanuts in the Federal budget. Moreover, the Federal government saves money because if the company is saved, the jobs are saved and there are fewer workers to retrain and the saved company and workers end up paying taxes at all levels of government rather than being a drain on the Treasury.

As stated in my last blog post, TAA for Firms/Companies works. In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.nwtaac.org/, has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.mataac.org, uses a video, http://mataac.org/howitworks/, to show in detail how the program resulted in significant turnarounds for four companies. The reason the TAA for Firms/Companies is so successful—Its flexibility in working with companies on an individual basis to come up with a specific adjustment plan to make them competitive once again in the US market as it exists today. For a sample recovery plan, see http://mataac.org/documents/2014/06/sample-adjustment-plan.pdf, which has been developed specific to the strengths, weaknesses and threats each company faces.

But as also stated in my last blog post, in this environment with so many injured companies, funding for TAA for Firms/Companies has to be increased so it can do its job.

An article from David Holbert, Executive Director Northwest TAAC, below states how the program works in more detail.

IMPORTS HAVE LANDED – SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE

David Holbert, Executive Direct Northwest TAAC

The issue of trade competition and lost jobs is well discussed in the media. I work with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who are negatively affected by import competition, what is often called “trade impact” in policy lingo. It’s a big issue. According to the U.S Trade Representative, the United States’ 30 million SMEs account for nearly two-thirds of net new private sector jobs in recent decades. This is one in a series of posts about trade impact.

In a previous post I talked about recognizing trade impact. Once a company figures out that imports are the cause of sales declines, they must respond. That response depends on the specifics of the trade threat.

Companies work within a set of cost and market access factors. Where those factors are shared, a new competitor or an established one upping their game, is usually a manageable theat. Some alteration in course might be recommended, but it is all in the range of expectations in a competitive landscape. Imports, however, generally perceive a significant advantage before they enter a market – whether that’s in design, technology, scale, or cost. Extreme cost differentials tend to be the province of imports and, more specifically, imports from low-labor cost, low-regulation sources. New arriving imports tend to be very strong competitors if not disrupters.

Before the imports arrived, customers had seen value in the available options. Now those customers can see a better cost-benefit exchange with the imported product. Unattended, the new entrant (the import) will gain market share – the only questions are how much and how fast.

Imports may have any of several weaknesses:

Importers are probably bearing a loss producing level of initial expense to establish a brand, set up sales capability, and establish distribution and service networks. The domestic company already is established, or can become so more easily.

Importers often have to order and ship in large quantities. It takes time for delivery to occur. What is an advantage in a standard product/price sensitive segment is a disadvantage in a customized / price elastic segment. Customization is almost always an advantageous capability for the domestic company

Importer service capability and quality can be weak. Service can be a challenge for those in different time zones, and speaking different languages. In low-cost economies, businesses often display a culture that values cost and quantity over all else. Quality and service are likely comparative strengths of the domestic company.

If the price differential is minor, improvements in operations without changing the business model may close the gap. The challenge is not less urgent, just less extensive. Every business I’ve worked with has a list of pending improvements. Now would be the time to implement some of these. Topping the list would the ones that lead to revenue faster. At this stage, the domestic company is probably losing sales. To the extent that you need a “plan”, that list is probably it. Let’s call it the minimum required response.

If the price differential is large, the business will face the uncharted territory of strategic change. That change will likely affect product, systems, processes, distribution, promotion, and pricing. In other words, everything.

Just as every business owner has a list of pending improvements, they also have more than one idea about a serious change in course. That is very likely an incomplete list. How could it be otherwise? Whatever the right change may be, the confidence to take that leap will almost certainly be absent. That is where TAA comes in. Most people don’t realize how thin of a line of viability businesses walk. It took a lot to get to the point where things work. A lot of what seemed like good ideas were proven wrong along the way. Changing that formula under conditions of less than certainty and necessity is almost always a bad idea. With trade impact, a business may have a condition of necessity. Now that business has to work on certainty.

It is not exactly clear how to get to that state of envisioning a strategic change with confidence and assurance. For a business owner, this is a life’s work. For the record, there are consultants that are capable in this area. Not that hiring in help is necessarily a solution. What is clear is that a full range of options and information supporting them become precious commodities.

Here are how some companies with TAA help dealt with trade impact:

A commercial products company makes a specialized tool and faced a sudden entry of imports at close to half the price. The company’s plan was to radically improve operations in the same market position. The owners had been complacent in a mature market. The plan included such actions as developing an automated version of the tool, emphasizing service and parts replacement capability, and revising sales and promotion activity. This works in commercial markets because buyers are informed and easily value factors like quality, service, and durability.

A contract manufacturer that machines metal parts specializing in titanium had lost their single industry customer base to imports. The owner recognized that their capabilities would be valued in the aerospace industry. Achieving AS9100 (aerospace industry quality certification) was an essential step. Entering the industry and becoming known among buyers was the larger challenge. This works because at the time aerospace was growing in the region.

A nut grower was priced out of its commodity market position by imports. The owners had thought of packaging for consumers and private labeling. With TAA help, they gained the confidence to proceed. It was exactly the right move –they removed a layer of distribution and gained back their profit margin. The company grew at tech industry rates.

A safety products producer was being displaced in large retailers by imports priced about 50% lower. With outside TAA consultants, they developed a radical plan to concentrate on commercial uses of their products that emphasized perpetual restocking rather than consumer products as final articles. This entailed converting from producing hundreds of low-cost, finished products a week to producing dozens of high-cost units and thousands of micro-orders of replacement articles. The company reversed sales declines in a surprisingly short time.

Threats from imports tend to be severe. They may have an insurmountable cost advantage. Under these conditions, the domestic company cannot win by just trying harder – something has to change. The first thing that has to change is the plan for the business. Deferred improvements might become urgent necessities. Incompletely conceived ideas about a change in the business model might have to be seriously considered. In future posts, I’ll talk about challenges of implementation.

Our role at the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center is to help small and medium-sized companies that are negatively affected by trade. Sometimes called “made in America grants” this federal program offers a matching fund for outside expertise of up to $75,000 for qualifying companies. NWTAAC serves companies in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska. You can learn more about us at NWTAAC.org.

United States Trade Representative Michael Froman announced today that the United States has launched a new trade enforcement complaint agains the People’s Republic of China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) concerning China’s subsidies to certain producers of primary aluminum. This action follows numerous bilateral eforts by the Obama Adminisration to persuade China to take strong seps to address the excess capacity situation in its aluminum sector. The complaint fled today begins a process to address U.S. concerns that China’s subsidies appear to have caused “serious prejudice” under WTO rules to U.S. interests by artifcially expanding Chinese capacity, production and market share and causing a significant lowering in the global price for primary aluminum. Today’s announcement marks the 16th trade enforcement challenge the Obama Adminisration has launched agains China at the WTO.

“This lates challenge once again demonsrates the Obama Adminisration’s unwavering commitment to ensuring a fair and level playing field for American workers and businesses,” said United States Trade Representative Michael Froman. “Artifcially cheap loans from banks and low-priced inputs for Chinese aluminum are contributing to excess capacity and undercutting American workers and businesses. Today’s action follows significant engagement by this Adminisration on excess capacity and demonstrates our commitment to hold China to its trade obligations. Our record of tough enforcement with China speaks for itself: When China cheats, we’ve been right there, securing recourse for our workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses. This is the 16th time we have taken action agains China at the WTO, and we’ve won every challenge that has been decided.”

CANADA AND JAPAN JUMP INTO CHINA’S WTO CASE AGANST THE US AND EC FOR FAILURE TO GIVE CHINA MARKET ECONOMY STATUS IN AD AND CVD CASES

As indicated in the past blog post, pursuant to the China WTO Accession Agreement, from the Chinese point of view December 11, 2016 is the date when countries can no longer treat China as a nonmarket economy under their antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) law. Neither the United States nor the EC declared China a market economy country on December 11th so predictably China filed a WTO complaint against the US and EC over their price comparison methodologies used in their AD and CVD laws.

On January 5, 2017, Canada and Japan decided to jump into the WTO case as third-party observers, citing the case’s potential to dramatically alter global antidumping laws. As Canada stated in its announcement:

“In many cases, Canadian exports to the United States compete directly with exports from China. As a result, Canada has a substantial trade interest in these proceedings which concern the ability of U.S. investigating authorities to properly determine normal values for allegedly dumped Chinese exports.”

As the Japanese Government stated:

“The legal basis of China’s complaint identified in its requests, if accepted, appears to affect anti-dumping investigation practice of many WTO Members … and in turn have substantial impact on international trade involving products originating in China. Japan is one of the major importers of goods … from China and one of the users of anti-dumping measures.”

The dispute is at the consultation stage, but will soon move on to a WTO panel.

FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES

UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES

With the election of Donald Trump, as stated in my last newsletter, the Universal Trade War will continue. In addition to the US bringing AD and CVD cases, countries around the World, such as EC, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Thailand, South Africa, and Vietnam, all are filing antidumping and countervailing duty cases against each other and the United States. These countries have adopted the US law which finds dumping in 90% of the cases. The US and the EC have created a Frankenstein in the antidumping law and the whole World has adopted it.

Compromise is the best way to settle trade disputes, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to settle US antidumping and other trade cases. What is “fair” trade for the United States is “fair” trade for every other country. Many countries want to make their industries Great again.

Because of this situation, this part of the newsletter will concentrate on trade cases in other countries and how other countries see the trade problem with the United States.

If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump and Trade, border adjustment taxes, US trade policy, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, trade adjustment assistance, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law, please feel free to contact me.

This newsletter contains several articles about trade and Trump after his victory on November 8th. As mentioned in my last blog post, the Trump victory will have a significant impact on trade policy. The TPP is dead.

But the next question is how will Trump help revive manufacturing in the United States and help the Rust Belt states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, which put him in the White House?

Will there be a trade war with China and other countries? Trump’s tough talk on the One China policy indicates a trade war, but his appointments to the US Ambassador to China and to the Commerce Department Secretary indicate the contrary. Trump, however, may be trying to use uncertainty to create leverage and a deal with the Chinese government on trade and other issues.

Will Trump use taxes to give US manufacturing an advantage at the detriment of imports?

Trump will try and do everything possible to increase jobs in the United States. Hopefully, that will mean more support to Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, which is the only effective US trade remedy that saves companies and the jobs that go with them without damaging US downstream production.

In addition, this blog post describes the recent WTO complaint China filed against the United States and the EC for failing to give it market economy status under the US and EC antidumping and countervailing duty laws. The newsletter also gives the upcoming deadlines under the Solar Cells and Hardwood Plywood cases against China.

Under the Universal Trade War theme, under China is an article on ways in which the Chinese government can retaliate against US companies in the trade war and newsletters from a Chinese law firm. In addition, under Canada attached is an article from Dan Kiselbach, a Canadian trade lawyer, about whether the Trump Administration can truly get out of NAFTA and also information about the recent Softwood Lumber Case against Canada. Finally, from Mexico there is information about a recent Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube case filed against imports from Korea, India, Spain and Ukraine, along with a brief description of Mexican antidumping law.

Finally, there is an announcement from the Justice Department about the accomplishments in the recent US/China meetings on Computer Hacking and also recent 337 intellectual property cases against China.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRADE AND TRADE POLICY

TRUMP AND TRADE – A BULL IN A CHINA SHOP OR A SAVVY NEGOTIGATOR?

On December 2, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump took a phone call from President Ing Wen Tsai of Taiwan. Trump’s decision to take the phone call from the Taiwan President created a fire storm as commentators questioned whether the United States would stick to the “one China” policy that implies that Taiwan is a part of China and that the long term relationship between China and the US would change.

In response, many commentators wrote articles suggesting that Trump was a “Bull in a China shop”, a clumsy inexperienced person taking actions without thinking about consequences. Chinese media called Trump “an ignorant child.”

It has since come out that the specific phone call with President Tsai had been discussed for several months and set up by former Republican Congressional leader Bob Dole. In fact, in addition to taking the call from President Tsai, President-elect, Trump met with Henry Kissinger, who is serving as a liaison for the Chinese government.

Instead of a Bull in China Shop, what President-Elect Donald Trump may have been trying to do with China is create a perception of strength and set up a sense of uncertainty. What is Trump going to do?

President Ronald Reagan was a master at playing a similar game. Projecting strength and also a feeling of uncertainty. What is Reagan going to do? Reagan’s projection of strength and uncertainty created agreements with Russia that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

A projection of strength and a sense of uncertainty gives Trump something Reagan had—leverage, which makes it easier to negotiate better deals.

On December 11. 2016, Trump stated on Fox News:

“I fully understand the ‘one China’ policy, but I don’t know why we have to be bound by a One China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”

Companies and countries should not make the mistake that many in the mainstream US media have made. Do not underestimate Donald Trump. He is not an ignorant child and many of his advisors are very knowledgeable about China. Trump wants a deal with China and he will not give something for nothing.

TRUMP’S APPOINTMENTS DO NOT INDICATE A TRADE WAR WITH CHINA

BRANSTAD TO BE AMBASSADOR TO CHINA

Through his appointments, Trump is indicating that he realizes how important the relationship is with China and he intends to appoint experts that understand China. On December 7th at a “Thank You” rally in Iowa, President-elect Trump announced that six term Iowa Governor Terry Branstad will be his pick for Ambassador to China. Governor Branstad has personally known Chinese President Xi Jinping since 1985 when Branstad was governor of Iowa and Xi was an agricultural official in northern China. For two weeks, Xi stayed with a family in the town of Muscatine, Iowa, an experience he likes to recall when visiting the State. Subsequently he met with Gov. Branstad in 2012 as vice chairman of the Chinese government.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang welcomed Branstad as an “old friend of the Chinese people” playing “a bigger role in China–U.S. relations”.

Branstad is also a friend of Trump, working actively on Trump’s campaign. During the general election, his son, Eric Branstad, managed Trump’s campaign in the state. Trump then won in Iowa, 51% of the vote to 42% for Clinton.

This appointment may be a signal that President-elect Trump does not want a trade war with China because Iowa has $2.3 billion in exports to China mostly agricultural exports, including corn and soybeans. Trump’s selection of Branstad for the most important diplomatic position to China suggests that the president-elect wants to keep negotiating channels open with Beijing, rather than adopt a knee jerk confrontational attitude

“One of the most important relationships we must improve and we have to improve is our relationship with China. The nation of China is responsible for almost of half of America’s trade deficit.

China is not a market economy they got a lot of help and that is why we designate them as being them as a nonmarket economy. Big thing.”

Trump went on to state, that the Chinese government has not “played by the rules, and they know it’s time that they’re going to start.” Trump went on to cite that China was responsible for “massive theft of intellectual property,” “putting unfair taxes on our companies,” “massive devaluation of their currency” and “product dumping”.

Trump further stated that the Ambassador he was going to appoint to China has “lots of friends there”. According to Trump, Branstad requested that Trump not speak ill of China because in Iowa “we do well with China”.

Trump also stated that he is looking to work on the relationship between China and the US and that Governor Branstad “knows China and likes China” and “knows how to deliver results.” Trump went on to state that Governor Branstad is highly respected by Chinese officials and a great friend of mine.

Donald Trump finished by stating “We’re going to have mutual respect, and China is going to benefit and we’re going to benefit. And Terry is going to lead the way.”

As the phone call with President Tsai of Taiwan indicates and his statement to Fox News, Trump is no push over. There is a new strong President in town so do not try and bully him. This President has options.

On the other hand, during the Primary and even after the election, well-respected conservative newspapers and commentators have stated that President Trump has to be careful not to create a trade war, especially with China. As recently as November 30, 2016, in Investors Business Daily, the one newspaper that projected a Trump victory prior to the election, two commentators, Congressman David Mcintosh and Scott Linicome in an article entitled “Trump Should Tread Softly On His New Trade Agenda” stated:

“exploiting ambiguities in the current web of U.S. trade laws to enact the President’s trade priorities by executive fiat could engender opposition from Congress, the U.S. business community and U.S. trading partners, thus leading to court challenges similar to those fled by the Republican Congress against President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

The crucial difference, however, is that the months of uncertainty surrounding the trade challenges would imperil trillions of dollars’ worth of goods and services, especially if the courts refused to enjoin the executive branch from acting while any such litigation is pending.”

WILBUR ROSS—NEXT COMMERCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARY

In addition, as explained in more detail below, Trump has decided to appoint billionaire private equity investor Wilbur Ross, a Warren Buffet type, to be the next Commerce Department Secretary. Trump’s decision to appoint Ross, a brilliant investor, industry expert and deal maker, indicates a decision to put trade/business professionals at the highest level in his Administration, who are very experienced with regard to business, international competition and China.

Ross was one of the important creators of Trump’s economic plan, which the campaign claimed will increase federal revenues by $1.7 trillion. With regards to Tariffs, Ross has specifically stated:

“Tariffs will be used not as an end game but rather as a negotiating tool to encourage our trading partners to cease cheating. If, however, the cheating does not stop, Trump will impose appropriate defensive tariffs to level the playing field.”

“namely selling products for less in a foreign market than their true price in your domestic market.

That’s the kind of activity that we think should be protected against. We are generally free market people but what was happening back in the early 2000s with steel and what is starting to happen again, is that product was actually being sold in this country for less than the total cost of manufacturing it.

That’s not legitimate competition. If someone can make things more inexpensively in their country and sell it here that’s fine with me. But it shouldn’t be that they have one price in their country and a lower price outside.”

In the video Ross further states that the reason China was dumping is:

“they had a period of overcapacity and because China is so much about jobs as opposed to profits, it was very important for the government to maintain jobs. So to maintain jobs they had to maintain production, even though there was not enough demand for it. The way they tried to solve the problem was by dumping it outside.”

Ross is correct that with its large overcapacity, most Chinese steel companies were dumping and probably at very high rates. But as indicated below, since the Commerce Department continues to treat China as a nonmarket economy and refuses to look at actual costs and prices in China, no one knows for certain which Chinese companies are truly dumping and what the real dumping rate of the Chinese companies is.

With regard to Chinese innovation, Ross indicates that he is very knowledgeable about China stating:

“China is coming along in terms of innovation. They now have the world’s biggest and fastest computer. That would have been unimaginable a decade ago. They’ve launched spaceships into outer space. They have not yet gotten to be as innovative as the United States is, nobody has been as innovative. Year after year the United States gets more patents than any other country by a wide margin. Interestingly, it’s Japan that comes in second.”

As to why China lags the US in innovation, Ross states:

“The United States is basically a free market economy and their entrepreneurship has been highly prized here for centuries and centuries so there’s a real tradition of risk-taking. Innovation involves a lot of risk-taking.

A state-owned enterprise is much less likely to be a big risk-taker then private capital. Since China had been so dominated by the state-owned enterprises it’s hard in a big bureaucratic system to be innovative. Look at the U.S. government itself, what interesting innovations have they come up with?”

Being a Warren Buffet type and very involved in the US Stock market, Wilbur Ross also has very educated views about the problems with the China Stock Market:

We think that China has two separate problems right now. One is the market itself, the equity market, and that got completely out of control. . . .

I think what then happened, the government seemed to have panicked and made lots and lots of very panicky moves. They first raised the margin requirement then they lowered it. They threw hundreds of billions of dollars into the market. Now they’re prosecuting people who spread negative stories about the market.

I think the difficulty with all that is, when a government shows signs of panic, particularly a government that historically has been able to control what happens pretty well, when that government shows panic it makes people more frightened, not less frightened.

Like many China experts, Ross believes that China’s growth numbers are not accurate:

The Chinese economy clearly is not growing at anything like 7 percent. We have felt for a couple of years that those figures were very, very generous. If you look at physical indicators—electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, oil consumption, cement consumption, steel consumption, telecom consumption, retails sales—if you look at all those indicators, none of them were growing at a rate that was equal to 7 percent and neither were the exports.

With regard to economic reform in China, Ross states:

I think what they’re trying to do is several things all at once and that makes it very challenging.

They’re trying to become more of a consumer-driven economy, but the reality is that their largest driver is capital investment. It’s hard to make that transition because capital investment is still about 44 percent of the economy.

They’re trying to make the transition, but meanwhile they’re doing the very- much-needed anti-corruption drive and that in a strange way has hurt consumer spending. . . .

I think they’ll get there, just that the transition is a hard one. Meanwhile there is super-imposed upon it, the economic issues in the rest of the world. Combined with China’s rising labor costs and the very strong currency, make it very difficult to be an exporter.

These responses along with the video indicate that Ross is not a knee-jerk protectionist and has a deep knowledge of China, which does not indicate a trade war any time soon.

COULD TAXES BE THE WAY TRUMP MAKES US INDUSTRY GREAT AGAIN

On the other hand, Trump and Republicans in Congress may be creating an alternative to tariffs to spur US manufacturing and that is taxes. In the Congress, one proposal in the House Republicans’ tax-reform plan is to give American-made products a big tax advantage over their foreign competitors. Although some commentators have pointed to a potential trade war, Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady stated, “We are now in the process of designing all aspects of our ‘Build for Growth’ tax plan to withstand any WTO challenge. We’re confident we can win any case.”

The key issue is a plan to fundamentally remake the tax system by taxing US companies based on where they sell their goods, not where the business happens to be located. As part of that, Republican tax legislators want to include what experts call “border adjustments” — new taxes on imports as well as tax rebates on exports. This plan would replace the current corporate tax code with something known among experts as a “border-adjustable, destination-based” tax system. Under their proposal, imports would be charged the same 20 percent tax that domestic companies would face. Exports would be excused from taxes. It would amount to a fundamental change, with the government taxing companies based on where they sell their wares, rather than where the business is located.

According to tax experts, this new tax plan would offset inversions and other types of international tax avoidance because companies would have less incentive to go to other countries looking for tax savings. The proposal would also finance a huge chunk of the Republicans’ overall tax plan — the Tax Policy Center estimates border adjustments would raise $1.2 trillion, making it the third-largest pay-for in the plan.

The proposal is already controversial because it threatens big tax increases to many large retailers, such as Walmart and Home Depot and other companies, which heavily rely on imports.

But critics say it would also violate free-trade agreements by favoring American-made goods over imports. That’s because, while they would all be subject to the same 20 percent tax, U.S. companies would be able to deduct the cost of workers’ pay when calculating their tax bills. Imports would not be given the same treatment and the difference could be dramatic.

If a U.S. company sold a product for $100 and it spent $70 on its workers’ pay, under the Republican plan the remaining $30 would be subject to the 20% tax. That would produce a $6 tax bill. An imported version of the same product would be forced to pay the 20% tax on the entire $100 sale, producing a $20 tax bill.

On December 7, 2016, Koch Industries came out against the Border Adjustment provision of the new tax overhaul with Philip Ellender, the head of government affairs at Koch Companies Public Sector LLC, stating that the so-called border adjustment proposal currently being considered by Republican lawmakers:

“would adversely impact American consumers by forcing them to pay higher prices on products produced in and goods imported to the U.S. that they use every single day. While companies like Koch who manufacture and produce many products domestically would greatly benefit in the short-term, the long term consequences to the economy and the American consumer could be devastating.”

Another problem is the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) allows border adjustments for so-called indirect taxes on transactions, such as value-added taxes, but not on direct taxes, such as income taxes. The Republican plan is a hybrid, raising questions about how the WTO would categorize it.

Any change in US tax treatment could be challenged by other countries in the WTO as a violation of the WTO Agreement of most favored nation, which requires imports to be treated the same as domestically produced products. If a WTO tribunal were to rule against the United States, the prevailing countries could be allowed to retaliate against US exports to account for the injury to their exports, which could be as high at $1.2 trillion.

But any challenge in the WTO will take years to litigate. A good example of this is the Byrd Amendment. The Byrd Amendment allowed US petitioner companies to get the dumping and countervailing duties collected by Customs. The Byrd Amendment passed in 2000 and after WTO litigation resulting in possible retaliation by other countries against the United States, the Congress repealed the Byrd Amendment in December 2005 on 51 to 50 vote in the Senate with Vice President Cheney breaking the tie. But for five years US petitioners collected the duties.

So instead of a direct protectionism using tariffs, any protectionism may be indirect, but it will have the same effect. Give US companies a major incentive to produce their products in the US, rather than rely on imports.

But the real problem with the tax plan is international trade/globalization victimhood which will lead the companies not to make the changes they need to make to be competitive. Just like the steel industry, US companies would continue to hunker down behind protectionist walls and never modernize their production to meet competition. That is the problem. As President Reagan himself observed, protectionism makes companies weaker not stronger and in the end does not save the companies and industries that are being protected.

On December 13th in a letter to Congress more than 50 retail and manufacturing associations urged Congress to abandon border tax adjustments saying the proposal to increase taxes on all imports could hurt domestic industry. Although the retail groups argue that border tax adjustments could raise consumer prices, as the letter states the real problem is the impact of higher raw material costs on downstream US production:

“Companies that rely on global supply chains would face huge business challenges caused by increased taxes and increased cost of goods, which would in turn likely result in reductions in employment, reduced capital investments and higher prices for consumers.”

Congress does not care if prices for consumer products go up a few dollars at Walmart, but what happens when US downstream producers in Congressional districts are forced to close down because of higher raw material costs. As one friend, who represented a major steel producer for years, told me, the total employment in the entire Steel industry is less than one high tech company and yet we want to protect the Steel industry at the expense of downstream high value added US production?

“That man who has stood behind a machine for 15 or 20 years, he knows better than the people who built it, how to get more productivity out of it. So you need to create an environment where he feels someone will pay attention if he makes a suggestion, and if it turns out to be a good suggestion, that he’ll be rewarded for it.”

Ross, worth $2.9 billion according to Forbes, has made his name in distressed assets investments and rose to fame turning around Bethlehem Steel for a short time as well as Burlington Industries. Ross also worked closely with labor unions, stating:

“There’s a big misconception in management–labor relations throughout the industrial world; too often management and labor view each other as adversaries. We truly view labor as our partner because they only have one company they’re working with and we only have one group of workers.

So we think it’s very important that we have a good, functional relationship. We don’t negotiate with unions having a big battalion of lawyers and accountants and human relations people. We tend to negotiate mano-a-mano with the union leadership. Once we’ve worked out the essence of the deal, we then turn it over.”

Ross probably knows the Rust Belt better than any politician, one of the reasons why President-elect Trump picked him. In the early 2000s he combined Acme Steel, LTV Steel, and Bethlehem Steel saving all of them from bankruptcy for a short period of time and returning the employees to the job but under new work rules and with 401(k)s instead of pensions.

Meanwhile, in early 2000, China suddenly had an insatiable demand for steel, combined with the U.S. automakers’ zero-percent financing push. American steel was suddenly red hot. The price per ton of rolled steel soared and Ross took the new entity, ISG, public in December 2003. Ross then sold ISG combined entity to Indian steel giant Mittal in 2005 for $4.5 billion. As Ross stated:

“It’s nice being the chairman of a huge company in a vital industry. But it’s nicer to make fourteen times your initial investment in just two years.”

Eventually, however, Bethlehem Steel fell into bankruptcy.

OPEN LETTER TO NEW COMMERCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARY WILBUR ROSS—ONLY TRADE REMEDY PROGRAMS THAT SAVE US COMPANIES—TAA FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES AND MEP

The Honorable Wilbur Ross

New Commerce Department Secretary Trump Administration

Re: Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies and MEP– Only Trade Remedy Programs That Save US Companies

Dear Secretary Ross,

The Press reports that President-elect Donald Trump has nominated you to be the next Commerce Department secretary. Your expertise in working with bankrupt US companies, such as Bethlehem Steel, gives the United States a unique chance to make its industry great again.

In the 1980s during the Reagan Administration, I worked at the Commerce Department and before that at the US International Trade Commission. Since the 1980s, I have represented many US importers/foreign producers in international trade cases, including metal, chemical and steel products, and am now on the Board of Directors of the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center in Seattle, Washington, which provides assistance to US companies injured by imports.

In my experience, ultimately these unfair trade cases do not work. Although they provide a breathing space, they do not save the companies and the jobs that go with them. Importers simply switch to a new country. Both of us have experience with Bethlehem Steel, which had 40 years of trade protection from steel imports through various antidumping and other trade orders. Where is Bethlehem Steel today? Green fields.

But trade cases also create enormous collateral damage in downstream industries that need competitive raw material inputs. Many US companies may use the cases to hide behind protectionist walls. The “hunker down” mindset is not in America’s DNA. Instead, this nation’s manufacturing businesses need to regain the competitive dynamism they once possessed. We need a new aggressive US manufacturing policy unleashing American global competitiveness to make companies strong enough to not only survive, but thrive in the US market.

A starting point would be for the Commerce Department to build upon two existing programs that have proven track records of success in this area that can be quickly ramped up and can have an immediate and tangible impact on the 250,000 small and medium manufacturing companies which serve as the bases of our supply chain: EDA’s Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms /Companies (“TAAF”) and NIST’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (“MEP”) (inexplicably, these programs have been marginalized by the Obama Administration). TAAF has 11 regional (multi-state) TAAF Centers but the program has been cut to only $12.5 million annually. The system has the band-width to increase to a run rate of $50 million. Projecting a four-year ramp up of $90 million (FY18-FY21), the TAA program could serve an additional 2,150 companies.

No federal funds go to any companies in the program. In fact, companies are required to pay into the program by matching any federal monies on a dollar-for-dollar basis. This sharing of costs between Uncle Sam and the companies creates a pool of seed dollars subsequently used to hire outside professionals. These professionals create a series of knowledge-based projects aimed at permanently upgrading key business processes over the span of several years. Here’s the kicker – the program does not block imports in any way.

NIST’s MEP program provides high quality management and technical assistance to the nation’s small manufacturers through independent Centers in every State and Puerto Rico, staffed by non-federal advanced manufacturing experts and is one of the remedies suggested by TAAF. MEP reaches nearly 30,000 firms each year, and works intensively (think “McKinsey for manufacturers”) with nearly 10,000 of them. As a consequence of a just completed nation-wide reinvention and reform of the program, MEP is positioned to assist even more companies. Currently funded at $130 million, a commitment of $100 million over four years would serve an additional 8400 firms. These funds could be targeted to those small and medium enterprises that are the base of our domestic supply chain, critical to your overall reshoring agenda. Like the TAAF program, no MEP funds go directly to the companies, which instead are required to cost share the cost of expert consultants. They have “skin in the game”.

Increasing funding will allow the TAA for Firms/Companies and the MEP programs to expand their bandwidth and provide relief to larger enterprises, including possibly even steel producers. If companies that use steel can be saved, why can’t those who produce it?

Attached is a longer proposal on how to expand TAA for Firms/Companies and the MEP Program to make US companies more competitive again.

I wish you great success in your new appointment. It gives me a level of confidence for the future of America’s manufacturing base that hasn’t been felt for quite some time.

I hope that the above has been of some interest. I would consider it an honor to expand on it in person if you think it appropriate.

Very truly yours,

William Perry

CHINA SUES US AND EC IN WTO FOR FAILURE TO GIVE CHINA MARKET ECONOMY STATUS IN AD AND CVD CASES ON DECEMBER 11, 2016

As indicated in past blog posts, pursuant to the China WTO Accession Agreement, from the Chinese point of view December 11, 2016 is the date when countries can no longer treat China as a nonmarket economy country under their antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) law. Neither the United States nor the EC declared China a market economy country on December 11th so predictably China has filed a WTO complaint against the US and EC over their price comparison methodologies used in their AD and CVD laws.

“China notified the WTO Secretariat that it had requested dispute consultations with the United States and the European Union regarding special calculation methodologies used by the US and EU in anti-dumping proceedings.”

Pursuant to US antidumping law, since China is a nonmarket economy country, Commerce refuses to use actual prices and costs in China to determine whether a Chinese company is dumping. Instead Commerce constructs a cost for the Chinese company using consumption factor information from China and “surrogate” values from import statistics in 5 to 10 different surrogate countries. In its proceedings, the Commerce Department can choose value data from different countries between a preliminary and final determination and between initial investigation to review investigation. Because of the numerous surrogate values from many different surrogate countries, it is impossible for the Chinese company, never mind the US importer, to know whether the Chinese company is dumping.

As former USTR General Counsel Warren Maruyama recently stated:

“The nonmarket economy methodology tends to generate extremely high margins and a lot of Chinese companies have basically concluded that it’s futile to defend NME cases, so this is a dispute with extremely high stakes for both sides.”

The controversy surrounds Section 15 of the China WTO Accession Agreement, which originated from the US China WTO Accession Agreement, which provides:

Price Comparability in Determining Subsidies and Dumping . . .

(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules: . . .

(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product. . . .

(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member’s national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non-market economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector.

In other words, pursuant to the China WTO Accession Agreement, Commerce’s right to us a nonmarket economy methodology in Article 15 (a)(ii) “shall expire 15 years after the date of accession”. China acceded to the WTO on December 11, 2001 so Section 15(d) should have taken effect on December 11, 2016, but did not.

But where did the 15 years come from? It came from a demand by the United States in the 2000 US China WTO negotiations and the resulting US-China WTO Accession Agreement. In fact, several years ago, former USTR Charlene Barshefsky, who negotiated the US China WTO Agreement, was asked at a conference in Beijing where the 15 years came from. Her response was that she knew what she needed to get from the Chinese government to get the Agreement through Congress. A USTR negotiator once told me that, in fact, this was “nonnegotiable demand” from the US government. So you would think that the US government would follow the Agreement it negotiated with China and the demand that it made of the Chinese government. Not so fast.

The United States’ apparent position is that although the 15 years was demanded by the US, since the 15 years is in not in a Treaty approved by Congress, the US does not have to follow the provision because it is not in the US Antidumping and Countervailing Duty law.

Iran has market economy status and has always been considered a market economy country. Although once classified as nonmarket economy countries, Russia and Ukraine have market economy status under the US antidumping law. Why and how did they become market economy countries?

The Russian leader has aggressively pursued closer ties with the West since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and many analysts had predicted the United States would grant Russia market economy status and help in its WTO bid in exchange for Putin’s strong support for the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan.

Sources in China reported that when he learned about the decision then Premier Zhu Rongyi in China was extremely angry, stating how could Russia get market economy before China? The answer—politics and the Chinese know it.

Regarding China’s challenged in the WTO, Nicholas R. Lardy, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, recently stated:

“I think this is potentially far more significant than most trade disputes … because the Chinese believe, with some justification, that they were promised something both verbally and in writing back at the time when they were negotiating their accession and now both Europe and the United States are walking away from it.”

SOLAR CELLS FROM CHINA PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION

On December 19, 2016, the Commerce Department issued the attached preliminary determination, 2014-2015-solar-cells-from-china-preliminary-determination, in the 2014-2015 antidumping revivew investigation on Solar Cells from China. Trina received an antidumping rate of 7.72%, Canadian Solar 30.42% and separate rate companies received a rate of 13.97%, the weighted average of Trina and Canadian Solar’s dumping rates. These are just preliminary rates and those rates can change in six months in a preliminary determination.

SOLAR CELLS FROM CHINA REVIEW INVESTIGATION STARTS THIS MONTH

As indicated in the attached Commerce Department review notice, december-2016-commerce-opportunity-to-request-reviews, this is the month to request review investigations in the Solar Cells ( formal name “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells”) from China case. Requests for review investigation must be filed at the Commerce Department by December 31st.

There has been much confusion about the difference between the Solar Cells case and the Solar Products (formal name “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products”) case.

The Solar Cells from China case covers exports and imports of Chinese Solar Panels with Chinese produced solar cells in them. The anniversary month is December to request a review investigation and the review period will cover imports and sales of Solar Cells to the United States during the period December 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016.

The Solar Products from China case covers exports and imports of Chinese Solar Panels with foreign produced solar cells in them. The anniversary month is February to request a review investigation and the review period will cover imports and sales of Solar Products to the United States during the period February 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017.

On December 9, 2016, in the attached factsheet, factsheet-prc-hardwood-plywood-products-ad-cvd-initiation-120916, the Commerce Department initiated the AD and CVD cases. To get a separate antidumping rate in the AD case, Chinese companies must submit a quantity and value questionnaire by December 22, 2016 and a separate rates application by January 13, 2017.

If anyone has any questions about this process, please feel free to contact me.

STEEL TRADE CASES

On November 30, 2016, in the attached factsheet, factsheet-multiple-clt-plate-ad-final-113016, Commerce announced its affirmative final determinations in the AD investigations of imports of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey. The Brazil AD rate is 74.52%. The South African rate ranges from 87.72% to 94.14%. The Turkey rate ranges from 42.02% to 50%.

FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES

UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES

With the election of Donald Trump, as stated in my last newsletter, the Universal Trade War will continue. In addition to the US bringing AD and CVD cases, countries around the World, such as EC, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Thailand, South Africa, and Vietnam, all are filing antidumping and countervailing duty cases against each other and the United States. These countries have adopted the US law which finds dumping in 90% of the cases. The US and the EC have created a Frankenstein in the antidumping law and the whole World has adopted it.

Compromise is the best way to settle trade disputes, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to settle US antidumping and other trade cases. What is “fair” trade for the United States is “fair” trade for every other country. Many countries want to make their industries Great again.

Because of this situation, this part of the newsletter will concentrate on trade cases in other countries and how other countries see the trade problem with the United States.

(3) abandon/ renegotiate “bad” trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and

4) use the full arsenal of US trade laws against Chinese unfair trade practices.

President-elect Trump’s trade actions likely will raise many legal and policy questions. Can he really do that? Should he do that? Will those actions achieve anything? Pundits, academics, lawyers, and ultimately U.S. judges will weigh in on these questions, but it is fair to assume China will not wait for the resolution of these questions. Instead China likely will retaliate with its own actions. This post looks at three possible ways China could respond to any attempts under the Trump administration to get tough against China.

China’s AD/ CVD Actions

Unbeknownst to many, China has initiated many of its own antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) actions against the United States and other countries. Having been on the receiving end of the most number of AD/CVD actions worldwide, China has incorporated into its own AD/CVD procedures some of the most effective techniques and practices from the AD/CVD investigations conducted by the U.S., EU, and other jurisdictions. For example, China’s AD questionnaires have burdensome and comprehensive sales and cost data requests, similar to, and even exceeding US practice. China’s AD/CVD margin calculation methodologies are as non-transparent as the EU’s margin calculations. China has even copied many of the annoying administrative practices of the US and EU such as giving only limited extensions, disregarding national holidays, or insisting on burdensome filing requirements (e.g., all documents of all filings must be fully translated into Chinese).

To date, China’s AD/CVD actions have largely been symbolic and timed to be initiated after specific U.S. actions against China. Although many of China’s AD/CVD cases have involved well-known companies (e.g., Corning, Dupont, Tyson Foods, Cadillac), most of these cases have had only limited economic impact. For example, in 2010, China imposed AD/CVD duties against U.S. chicken broiler products after the U.S. imposed special safeguard duties against Chinese tires in 2009. Most of the U.S. exports to China were of chicken feet, which had limited demand in the U.S., other than as a byproduct to make animal feed.

More recent China AD/CVD actions, however, have had greater strategic economic impact. After the US and EU filed AD/CVD actions against Chinese solar cells and modules in 2011, China retaliated by initiating its own AD/CVD actions against solar-grade polysilicon from the United States, EU and Korea. China’s AD/CVD action effectively closed off the largest export market for US polysilicon producers, and was a significant contributing factor to REC Silicon’s decision to shutter its polysilicon production operations in Washington and Montana.

Even more recently, China in late September announced preliminary AD duties of 33.8% and CVD duties of up to 10.7% against imports of U.S. distillers dried grains (DDGS), an ethanol by-product used as animal feed. The U.S exported $1.6 billion of DDGS to China in 2015.

China apparently already has an AD/CVD action prepared against U.S. soybeans exports to China and is just waiting for the right time to initiate the action. The U.S. is the largest producer and exporter of soybeans and exported over $10 billion of soybeans to China in 2015. If Trump wants to get tough against China, US soybean producers may well become collateral damage in the latest round of the escalating US-China trade war.

China’s Antitrust Enforcement

Another option for China to respond against any anti-China trade actions from the U.S. would be through the enforcement of its antitrust laws. Although China implemented its anti-monopoly law only in 2008, China has become increasingly active in reviewing mergers and investigating abuse of market dominance. In February 2015, Qualcomm paid $975 million fine to settle Chinese antitrust investigations into its alleged abuse of market dominant position. In 2016, China’s antitrust authorities have targeted pharmaceuticals, medical devices, vehicle manufacturing, ocean shipping, and smart manufacturing as industries of particular concern. U.S. companies operating in these industries should be aware of possible dawn raids of its corporate offices in China and other enforcement action by Chinese antitrust authorities. Because these industries are already prioritized for extra scrutiny, China could ramp up its antitrust enforcement actions as an indirect way to retaliate quickly against Trump’s actions against China.

China’s Criminal Enforcement

China could also retaliate by simply enforcing its own criminal laws against foreign (i.e., U.S.) company officials while in China. Earlier this month, China detained at least three employees of Crown Resorts, Ltd, an Australian gambling company, and will be pursuing criminal charges because under Chinese law casinos are not allowed to promote gambling in China or organize groups to go to casinos overseas. No one knows where and when the next China anti-corruption effort will occur, but foreign companies doing business in China in important or politically sensitive industries need to be extra cautious. Company officials need to know which way the wind is blowing in China, particularly when Trump’s enflamed trade rhetoric may trigger Chinese backlash.

So far, although Trump has talked a lot about China, China has taken the high road noting that U.S.-China trade relations are “too big to fail”. China appears to be waiting to see if Trump’s actions will in fact harm China. For example, Trump’s decision to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership actually opens the door for China to step in and fill the TPP void by promoting its own regional trade agreement (RCEP – Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership). If, however, Trump does do anything that China considers excessive, it would be naïve to think China will do nothing. Unlike the U.S.-Japan trade wars from the 1980s, China has a home market that is often the biggest export market for US producers. China has many options under its own laws to directly or indirectly retaliate against U.S. interests. Anyone wishing to do business in China or with China should consider these risks that they could be targeted for symbolic retaliation in a spiraling US-China trade war.

CANADA

LUMBER FROM CANADA CASE COMES BACK

On November 25, 2016, the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade or Negotiations, the domestic lumber companies, filed an antidumping and countervailing petition against softwood lumber products from China. In the attached notice, factsheet-canada-softwood-lumber-productsad-cvd-initiation-121616, on December 16, 2016, the Commerce Department initiated an antidumping and countervailing duty case on solftwood lumber products from Canada.

THE CANADIAN VIEW

In attached footnoted article, trumpnaftafinal, Dan Kiselbach, a well-known Canadian Trade and Customs lawyer, at Deloitte Tax Law in Vancouver, Canada discusses whether and how Trump can cancel NAFTA.

MEXICO

On December 15, 2016, in the attached notice in Spanish, dof-15-dic-16-resolucion-inicio-investig-antidumping-import-tuberia-de-a, the Mexican Government started up its own antidumping investigation against imports of carbon steel tube from Korea, India, Spain and Ukraine. A large number of US companies have been named as respondent exporters. All the exporters are named in pages 7 to 11 of the notice.

In the attached memorandum, carbon-steel-pipe-and-tube-mexicowhich will be attached in full on my blog, www.uschinatradewar.com, David Hurtado Badiola, a well known Mexican Trade and Customs lawyer, at Jauregui y Del Valle, S.C. in Mexico states:

Hot-rolled tubes, uncoated or other surface-worked work, including Hot-drawn or lacquered: of an external diameter not exceeding o equal to 114.3 mm and a wall thickness equal to or exceeding 4 mm without exceeding 19.5 mm

Tariff

7304.19.02

Hot-rolled tubes, uncoated or other surface-worked work, including Hot-drawn or lacquered: of an external diameter

exceeding 114.3 mm but not exceeding 406.4 mm and having a wall thickness of 6,35 mm or more but not exceeding 38.1 mm .

Tariff

7304.19.99

The others.

Subheading 7304.39

Others, of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel:
Others.

Tariff

7304.39.05

Tubes known as “thermal” or “conducting” tubes, uncoated or surface-worked, including pipes called thermal or conducting, lacquered or varnished: of an external diameter not exceeding or equal to 114.3 mm and having a wall thickness equal to or greater than 4 mm, not to exceeding 19.5 mm.

Tariff

7304.39.06

Tubes known as “thermal” or “conducting” tubes, uncoated or surface-worked, including pipes called thermal or conducting, lacquered or varnished: of an external diameter greater than 114.3 mm not exceeding 406.4 mm and having a wall thickness equal to or greater than 6.35 mm, not to exceeding 38.1 mm.

Tariff

7304.39.99

Others.

There are two different periods covered in an antidumping investigation: (i) the investigated period and (ii) the analyzed period.

The investigated period covers importations from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016.

The analyzed period is a longer period that covers importations from April 1, 2013 to March 31 2016. This period is used to analyze injury caused by imports at dumping prices.

Every exporter that appears and files the information required is entitled to have its own dumping margin calculated.

Those exporters that do not appear or did not export in the investigated period shall be subject to the “all others rate”, equivalent to the highest duty imposed to the exporters of their country.

The term to file information in the official questionnaire and defense arguments expires on February 9, 2017.

If anyone is interested in participating in the case, please let me know and I will put them in touch with Mexican trade counsel.

COMPUTER HACKING

US AND CHINA MEETING

On December 8, 2016, the Justice Department issued a notice, on the recent high level Joint Dialogue between the United States and China on Cybercrime and Related Issues, which states:

Joint Summary of Outcomes

Yesterday, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, together with Chinese State Councilor and Minister of the Ministry of Public Security Guo Shengkun, co-chaired the third U.S.-China High-Level Joint Dialogue on Cybercrime and Related Issues. The dialogue aims to review the timeliness and quality of responses to requests for information and assistance with respect to cybercrime or other malicious cyber activities and to enhance pragmatic bilateral cooperation with regard to cybercrime, network protection and other related issues.

Both sides endorse the establishment of the dialogue mechanism as beneficial to bilateral communication and enhanced cooperation, and believe that further solidifying, developing and maintaining the dialogue mechanism and continuing to strengthen bilateral cooperation in cybersecurity is beneficial to mutual interests.

The outcomes of the third dialogue are listed as below:

Combatting Cybercrime and Cyber-Enabled Crime. Both sides re-commit to cooperate on the investigation of cyber crimes and malicious cyber activities emanating from China or the United States and to refrain from cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial To that end, both sides:

Plan to continue the mechanism of the “Status Report on S./China Cybercrime Cases” to evaluate the effectiveness of case cooperation.

Affirm that both sides intend to focus cooperation on hacking and cyber-enabled fraud cases, share cybercrime-related leads and information with each other in a timely manner, and determine priority cases for continued law enforcement cooperation. Both sides intend to continue cooperation on cases involving online distribution of child Both sides seek to expand cyber-enabled crime cooperation to counter Darkweb marketplaces’ illicit sale of synthetic drugs and firearms.

Seek to provide concrete and timely updates on cases brought within the ambit of the

Exchanged views on existing channels of multilateral cooperation, and intend to continue exchanges regarding this

Network Both sides acknowledged the network protection seminar held in August 2016 in China, and believe that enhancing network protection is beneficial to both sides. Both sides suggest holding regular network protection working-level meetings, either remotely or in-person, the next of which should be planned for 2017. Both sides seek to promote the protection of our respective networks through multiple methods. To that end, both sides:

Plan to enhance network hygiene by promoting the cleaning and patching of malware infections in our respective networks and promoting best network protection

Intend to hold, as early as possible in 2017, a S.-China government and technology company roundtable to discuss cybersecurity issues of mutual concern.

Misuse of Technology and Communications to Facilitate Violent Terrorist Activities. Both sides acknowledged the seminar on misuse of technology and communications to facilitate violent acts of terrorism held in November 2016 in China, and decided to continue cooperation on information sharing in countering the use of the Internet for terrorist and other criminal Both sides will consider holding a second seminar in 2017.

Hotline Both sides welcomed the launch of the U.S.-China Cybercrime and Related Issues Hotline Mechanism, and decided to continue to use the hotline in accordance with the Work Plan. Both sides will conduct routine review of the use of the hotline.

Dialogue Both sides recommend that the dialogue continue to be held each year, and that the fourth dialogue occur in 2017.

If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump and Trade, international taxes, US trade policy, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, trade adjustment assistance, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law, please feel free to contact me.

This blog post contains several articles about trade and Trump after his victory on November 8th. The Trump victory will have a significant impact on trade policy. As stated below, the TPP is dead. The Republican Congress will not oppose Trump and bring the TPP to the Congressional floor in the Lame Duck. The TPP may only come back when and if the trade safety net, including Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies, is fixed.

The trade impact on the Rust Belt states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, is a major reason for the Trump victory. Trump’s victory means that trade wars may escalate. But with the increase in trade wars, global trade has already started falling and that means a 2015 drop of $200 billion in US exports. Exports create US jobs too and when exports fall US jobs fall.

As Congressman Don Bonker states, trade conflicts with China and other countries will increase both from the US and the Chinese side. Trump may well self-initiate trade cases against China and China will bring cases against the US. But Congressional Republicans will try to limit Trump’s protectionist nature.

Xi Jinping of China has already stated that the Chinese government wants to work with President Trump because of the importance of the US China economic relationship.

Complicating the situation is that last week the EC has proposed a change to its antidumping and countervailing to allow it to continue to treat China as a nonmarket economy country or as a country which distorts its market by government practices.

On the other hand, we can expect Congress to work very close with President Trump on different policy initiatives to make the United States a much more fertile ground for US manufacturing. This will mean cuts in Corporate tax rates and the reduction in production curtailing regulations. Trump will try and do everything possible to increase jobs in the United States. Hopefully, that will mean more support to Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, which is the only effective US trade remedy that saves companies and the jobs that go with them.

Under the Universal Trade War theme, there are articles by Chinese lawyers on Chinese antidumping law, along with newsletter from an Indian lawyer about Indian trade law. Many of these cases in other countries target the United States.

In addition, there is an article about Customs Evasion in the Aluminum Extrusions antidumping case and several recent 337 intellectual property cases against China.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrismoure.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRADE AND TRADE POLICY

TRUMP VICTORY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR TRADE

Donald Trump won the Presidency on November 8th, and on January 20, 2017 Trump will become the 45th President of the United States. What does this mean for trade?

TPP IS DEAD

With the Trump victory, Republicans in the House and the Senate will not fight Trump and will not bring the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) to the floor during the Lame Duck session. According to recent press reports, Trump might try and renegotiate TPP, but as written, TPP is dead.

Several weeks ago during the heat of the campaign, Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, stated that he could no longer campaign with Donald Trump. ln a speech on November 9th, the day after the Trump victory, House Speaker Paul Ryan ate humble pie.

Ryan also made it clear that he was extremely grateful because Trump was the first time Republican Presidential candidate to win Wisconsin’s electoral votes, his home state, since 1984. Ryan also stated that Trump had coat tails. Trump’s victory allowed down ballet Republicans to win. The most important example of that was Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson, who was in a very tough reelection campaign. Trump’s victory helped Ron Jonson win and allowed the Republicans to hold on to the Senate by a 51 to 49 plurality.

The simple political reality is that Trump’s victory allowed the Republicans to hold a majority in the Senate and the House.

As Paul Ryan stated,

“Donald Trump heard a voice in this country that no one else heard. He connected in ways with people that no one else did. He turned politics on its head. And now Donald Trump will lead a unified Republican government.”

There is no way that Paul Ryan is going to oppose Trump and bring the TPP to the floor of Congress in the face of that political feat. Let the next Administration deal with this issue. As explained below, the TPP will probably stay dead until Congress and the Administration fix the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program and make many US companies competitive again so they can withstand competition from imports.

It should be noted that those Republicans that distanced themselves from Trump, such as Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, lost their races. In light of the Trump victory and his opposition to Trump, Governor John Kasich will have little weight when he argues for the TPP.

TRUMP’S PROTECTIONIST ARGUMENT TO THE RUST BELT STATES DROVE HIS VICTORY

The big surprise in the Trump victory was that traditionally Democratic states, the Rust Belt, of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio all went for Trump. To illustrate the shock to the Democratic party, Hilary Clinton did not even campaign in the State of Wisconsin because the Democrats assumed they had Wisconsin in the bag. Why did these Rust Belt states go for Trump? Trade.

The person who forecast this victory was Michael Moore, the very famous Democratic gadfly and movie producer. In a true statement against interest, last summer Michael Moore explained why he, the Good Democrat, believed that Trump would win the election—the Rust Belt and Trade. http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/. Donald Trump spoke out against the US automobile companies moving their manufacturing to Mexico. Trump threatened that if they did, a President Trump would impose a 35% tariff on all these cars coming back to the United States. The Auto executives were stunned, but the Working Class in Michigan stood up and cheered. See Moore’s powerful video predicting the Trump victory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc. As Moore stated, Donald Trump is the “human Molotov cocktail” that these working people want to throw through the establishment window.

Ohio’s Cuyahoga County Republican Party Chairman Robert S. Frost stated that he believes that Trump’s trade message had a deep and profound effect on the regional electorate in Ohio:

“The economy has been going gangbusters, the U.S. has been expanding its trade relationships … but there are people here who [were] working, at many times, very skilled jobs that they took a great deal of pride in. They felt like they were left behind in this economy, and Donald Trump spoke right to that in places like Youngstown to Detroit to Milwaukee.”

Exit polls showed that half of Michigan’s voters are of the opinion that free trade takes away jobs, and those trade skeptics broke for Trump by a 57 to 36 percent margin over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. There are similar stories to be found in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where 47 percent and 53 percent of voters respectively felt that free trade hurts workers and jobs.

Trump’s arguments are the same protectionist arguments that Rust Belt Democrats have used to be elected for decades, but the Workers had seen no change. By upending conventional Republican wisdom on trade, Trump opened the door to a whole new group of voters. These workers in the Rust Belt are Nixon’s Silent Majority, the Reagan Democrats, that went for Trump.

As Frost further stated:

“Organized labor had thought that the Democrats had had their backs for the last 25 years, but they look around and see where they are, and they wonder why they had placed their faith there. Donald Trump went against what had been Republican orthodoxy on trade. Part of how we got there is that Hillary Clinton … began taking an internationalist position of trade for trade’s sake, as opposed to representing an American position on trade.”

Trump appealed to the emotions of workers who felt wronged by a steady pattern of trade liberalization that is, in their minds, was about to get much worse if the U.S. Congress had been able to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership accord,

Budget-deficit hawks often insist that the only way to balance the Federal budget is to raise taxes or cut spending. The far smarter path to balance the budget is simply to grow our economy faster.

From 1947 to 2001, the U.S. real gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 3.5 percent. Since 2002, that rate has fallen to 1.9 percent — at the cost of millions of jobs and trillions of dollars of additional income and tax revenues.

This new normal argument — it should more appropriately be called the “new dismal” — also ignores the self-inflicted negative impacts from poorly negotiated trade deals and the failure to enforce them. These bad deals include, most notably, NAFTA, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, and, most recently, Hillary Clinton’s debilitating 2012 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

In 2012, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised that the “cutting edge” South Korean deal would create 70,000 new jobs. Instead, the US has lost 95,000 jobs and America’s trade deficit with South Korea has roughly doubled. Moreover, workers in the U.S. auto industry, particularly in states such as Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, have been hard hit. . . .

Donald Trump has pledged to renegotiate every one of America’s bad trade deals according to the principles of the Trump Trade Doctrine. The Trump Trade Doctrine states that any new or renegotiated deal must increase the GDP growth rate, decrease the trade deficit, and strengthen the U.S. manufacturing base. . . .

Some critics will argue that reducing the flow of cheap imports from locales such as China, Mexico, and Vietnam will be inflationary and act as a regressive tax by denying lower-income households cheap imports. In reality, four decades of one-sided globalization and chronic trade deficits have shifted wealth and capital from workers to the mobile owners of capital and reduced the purchasing power of Americans.

A visit to cities like Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and Flint, Michigan, reveals quickly the falsehoods and broken promises of those who preach the gains from trade deficits — which are often financed by those who turn a profit from offshoring production. Trump’s proposals will reverse these trends, concentrate more wealth and purchasing power in the hands of domestic workers and result in substantially higher employment. This will more than offset any price increases. Moreover, as products develop a competitive advantage in America and increase their production and margins, prices per unit will go down.

To those alarmists who insist Trump’s trade policies will ignite a trade war, we say we are already engaged in a trade war — a war in which the American government has surrendered in before even engaging. Unfair trade practices and policies of our competitors are simply overlooked or ignored. As a well-documented result, America has already lost tens of thousands of factories, millions of jobs, and trillions in wages and tax revenues.

Donald Trump will simply put our government on the field in defense of American interests. As Trump pursues a policy of more balanced trade, our major trading partners are far more likely to cooperate with an America resolute about balancing its trade than they are likely to provoke a trade war.

This is true for one very simple reason: Our major trading partners and deficit counterparties are far more dependent on our markets — the largest in the world — than we are on their markets.

Consider that in 2015, we ran a trade deficit in goods of $746 billion. 76 percent of that trade deficit in goods concerned just four countries: China ($367 billion); Germany ($75 billion); Japan ($69 billion); and Mexico ($61 billion).

If we look at the bilateral relationships of America with each of these countries, improvement in our trade balance is clearly achievable through some combination of increased exports and reduced imports, albeit after some tough, smart negotiations — an obvious Trump strength. The same possibilities exist with countries where we are running smaller, but nonetheless significant, deficits, such as Vietnam ($31 billion), South Korea ($28 billion), Italy ($28 billion), and India ($23 billion).

Such deficit reduction negotiations will not be wild-eyed, hip-shooting exercises. A key part of the Trump strategy will be to divert some of the products our deficit counterparties import to U.S. suppliers.

For example, many of our trading partners with which we run large trade deficits import substantial hydrocarbons from elsewhere. It would not be difficult for, say, China, Japan, Germany, and South Korea to buy more U.S. hydrocarbons. Trump intends to end the regulatory constraints on hydrocarbon production and hydrocarbon exports, resulting in as much as $95 billion gains for the U.S.

Our deficit counterparties also import lots of industrial equipment and supplies of plastics and other materials, some from the U.S. already. There is ample room here for them — along with countries like India, Mexico, and Vietnam — to switch vendors.

Trump’s strategic approach to trade negotiations would begin with product-by-product and country-by-country analyses. Our negotiators would set goals that are achievable and pursue them fiercely. No prior administration has ever approached trade as surgically as a Trump Administration would.

As a business person, rather than a politician, Trump understands this: There is no more reason to let our major trading partners take advantage of us than there is for a large private company to permit its vendors to do so.

You will notice we have not mentioned tariffs. They will be used if necessary against mercantilist cheating, but only in a very precise and defensive way.

Ultimately, our view is that doing nothing about unfair trade practices is the most hazardous course of action — and the results of this hazard are lived out every day by millions of displaced American workers and deteriorating communities. We simply cannot trade on their one-sided terms; they are just too destructive to the U.S. growth process.

At the end of the day — and on November 8th — voters have a very clear choice between Trump’s smart path to rapid growth and budget balance and Hillary Clinton’s new dismal world of economic stagnation. At least on the economy, this choice is clear.

Emphasis added.

The problem with the argument, however, is that it is based on the economic situation decades ago when the US was the largest market in the World. That is no longer true. China with its 1.2 billion population has a larger market than the US. House Speaker Paul Ryan has cited many times that 75% of the World’s consumers are outside the United States.

The real problem with Trump’s trade policy is uncertainty. No one knows how aggressive Trump will be in a new Administration. Through the Commerce Department self-initiating antidumping and countervailing duty cases and bringing Section 201 Escape Clause cases against the World, a President Trump can certainly increase protectionist barriers in the US.

A President Trump can unravel NAFTA and dump the TPP, but if the US erects substantial barriers to US imports, countries around the World will respond by increasing barriers to US exports.

NOT RETALIATION RECIPROCITY

The problem with protectionism is that trade is a two-way street and what the US can do to countries, they can do back. In my last blog post, I stated that although many US politicians, including Donald Trump, want to adopt a mercantilist trade policy which favors pushing exports and protecting US industries from imports, the US politicians simply do not understand retaliation. In this blog post, I want to restate this because the issue is not retaliation. It is reciprocity.

Retaliation implies a tit for tat response. You attack us. We attack you. The United States files an antidumping case targeting $4 billion in imports of Solar Cells from China, and China responds with a meritless Chinese antidumping case targeting $2 billion in imports of Polysilicon from the United States. But that is not what truly happened. In the Chinese polysilicon case, for example, the Chinese polysilicon industry was truly being hurt by US imports.

The real issue is reciprocity. If the US can use its antidumping and countervailing duty laws to find dumping and subsidization in more than 90% of the cases, the Chinese governments and governments around the World can make the same finding with regards to imports from the United States. What goes around comes around.

Free trade agreements, such as the TPP and the TTIP, which would break this cycle are now dead as the US and each country wants to put its industries first and make their country and industries great again. The rise in economic nationalism results in trade wars in which country after country will fire trade guns against each other.

The argument that trade wars are already going on is true, but what the pundits do not realize is that under Trump the trade wars will get bigger. The US has antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering $30 billion in imports from China. The Chinese government has orders blocking about $10 billion in imports from the US, including polysilicon, chicken, numerous chemical products, and steel products. Just recently, the Chinese government has issued an antidumping order blocking over $1 billion in Chinese imports from the United States of distiller grains, and now there is talk about a case targeting $15 billion of imports of US soybeans. What goes around comes around.

In a November 11th editorial, entitled “The Message Of Donald Trump’s Stunning Victory” the International Business Daily stated that the one policy which has to be reined in by Republicans in Congress is trade:

“Republicans will also have to work hard to temper Trump’s anti-free-trade instincts. A trade war is the one big risk Trump’s presidency represents for the economy. Trump has repeatedly the he is all in favor of free trade, and the GOP needs to hold him to those words.”

TRADE IS FALLING AROUND THE WORLD

Moreover, on October 30, 2016, Binyamin Applebaum in an article entitled “A Little-Noticed Fact About Trade: It’s No Longer Rising” found that trade around the world is dropping, including a drop of $200 billion in US exports:

“The growth of trade among nations is among the most consequential and controversial economic developments of recent decades. Yet despite the noisy debates, which have reached new heights during this Presidential campaign, it is a little-noticed fact that trade is no longer rising. The volume of global trade was flat in the first quarter of 2016, then fell by 0.8 percent in the second quarter, according to statisticians in the Netherlands, which happens to keep the best data.

The United States is no exception to the broader trend. The total value of American imports and exports fell by more than $200 billion last year. Through the first nine months of 2016, trade fell by an additional $470 billion It is the first time since World War II that trade with other nations has declined during a period of economic growth. . ..

But there are also signs that the slowdown is becoming structural. Developed nations appear to be backing away from globalization.

The World Trade Organization’s most recent round of global trade talks ended in failure last year. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, an attempt to forge a regional agreement among Pacific Rim nations, also is foundering. It is opposed by both major-party American presidential candidates. Meanwhile, new barriers are rising. Britain is leaving the European Union. The World Trade Organization said in July that its members had put in place more than 2,100 new restrictions on trade since 2008.

“Curbing free trade would be stalling an engine that has brought unprecedented welfare gains around the world over many decades,” Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, wrote in a recent call for nations to renew their commitment to trade. . . .

But even if growth rebounds, automation reduces the incentives to invest in the low- labor-cost developing world, and it reduces the benefits of such investments for the residents of developing countries.”

UNFAIR TRADE CASES DO NOT WORK; THEY DO NOT SAVE THE US COMPANIES

The problem with the potential Trump policy of bringing more unfair trade cases to solve the trade problem is that trade cases do not work. They do not save the companies and the jobs that go with them.

Bethlehem Steel, a history that I am personally aware of, had 40 years of protection from steel imports through various antidumping and countervailing duty cases and orders. Where is Bethlehem Steel today? Green fields.

Trying to stop a wave of low priced imports by filing an unfair trade cases is like putting finger in a dike when faced with a tidal wave engulfing the entire company and industry.

When an industry and company is faced with competition from imports it is so easy to engage in globalization/international trade victimhood. We poor US companies cannot compete because all imports are dumped and subsidized.

For countries and companies faced with import competition, the easy solution is blame the foreigner. The only way for a company to truly survive, however, is give up the globalization victimhood mindset and do what is necessary to make the company competitive again.

EXISTING PROGRAMS TO MAKE US MANUFACTURING COMPANIES MORE COMPETITIVE IS THE ANSWER TO THE TRADE PROBLEM — TAA FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES AND THE MEP MANUFACTURING PROGRAM– BUT THEY HAVE BEEN CUT TO THE BONE

The US Government already has successful programs to make US companies injured by imports competitive again, but they have been cut to the bone. Companies and Unions that want to take advantage of these programs and survive must first change their mindset and reject the defeatism of international trade/globalization victimhood.

Those programs are:

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (Commerce)

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (Commerce)

Economists and policy makers of all persuasions are now beginning to recognize the requirement for a robust response by this nation to foreign imports – irrespective of party affiliation or the particular free trade agreement under consideration at any given moment. Companies, workers and Government officials need to stop blaming the foreigner and figure out what they can do to compete with the foreign imports. These two programs make US companies injured by imports competitive again.

Free trade does not have to be abandoned resulting in a lose lose situation for all countries. When the US Government enters into Trade Agreements, such as NAFTA, the TPP, or the TTIP, Government action changes the market place. All of a sudden US companies can be faced with a series of flash floods of foreign competition and imports that can simply wipe out US companies. The US Government must restore the international trade safety net.

A starting point for a trade adjustment strategy would be for a combined Commerce-Labor approach building upon existing authorities and proven programs, that can be upgraded and executed forthwith.

Commerce’s Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (TAAF) has 11 regional (multi-state) TAAF Centers but the program has been cut to only $12.5 million annually. The system has the band-width to increase to a run rate of $50 million. Projecting a four-year ramp up of $90 million (FY18-FY21), the TAA program could serve an additional 2,150 companies.

Foreign competitors may argue that TAA for Firms/Companies is a subsidy, but the money does not go directly to the companies themselves, but to consultants to work with the companies through a series of knowledge-based projects to make the companies competitive again. Moreover, the program does not affect the US market or block imports in any way.

Does the program work? In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center in this video at http://mataac.org/howitworks/ describes in detail how the program works and saved four companies and the jobs that go with them. The reason TAA for Firms/Companies is so successful—Its flexibility in working with companies on an individual basis to come up with a specific adjustment plan for each company to make the companies competitive again in the US market as it exists today.

Increasing funding will allow the TAA for Firms/Companies program to expand its bandwidth and provide relief to larger US companies, including possibly even steel producers. If companies that use steel can be saved by the program, why can’t the steel producers themselves?

But it will take a tough love approach to trade problems. Working with the companies’ management and the Union to forget about Globalization victimhood and start trying to actually solve the Company’s problems that hinder its competitiveness in the market as it exists today.

In addition to TAA for Firms/Companies, another important remedy needed to increase competitiveness is Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which has a Center in each State and Puerto Rico. MEP provides high quality management and technical assistance to the country’s small manufacturers with an annual budget of $130 million. MEP, in fact, is one the remedies suggested by the TAA Centers along with other projects to make the companies competitive again.

As a consequence of a nation-wide re-invention of the system, MEP is positioned to serve even more companies. A commitment of $100 million over four years would serve an additional 8,400 firms. These funds could be targeted to the small manufacturing firms that are the base of our supply chain threatened by foreign imports.

Each of these programs requires significant non-federal match or cost share from the companies themselves, to assure that the local participants have significant skin in the game and to amplify taxpayer investment. A $250 million commitment from the U.S. government would be a tangible although modest first step in visibly addressing the local consequences of our trade policies. The Department of Commerce would operate these programs in a coordinated fashion, working in collaboration with the Department of Labor’s existing Trade Adjustment Assistance for Displaced Workers program.

TAA for Workers is funded at the $711 million level, but retraining workers should be the last remedy in the US government’s bag. If all else fails, retrain workers, but before that retrain the company so that the jobs and the companies are saved. That is what TAA for Firms/Companies and the MEP program do. Teach companies how to swim in the new market currents created by trade agreements and the US government

In short – this serious and multi-pronged approach will begin the process of stopping globalization victimhood in its tracks.

Attached is a longer proposal, taaf-2-0-white-paper, on how to expand TAA for Firms/Companies and the MEP Program to make US companies more competitive again.

UNDER TRUMP TRADE CONFLICTS WITH CHINA WILL INCREASE

As readers may remember, my deep dive on the background of this election started with a February conversation and bet with my friend, former Democratic Congressman Don Bonker. He firmly believed that Hilary Clinton would win in a landslide and the Democrats would win the Senate and the House.

I knew people that were going to vote for Trump and believed that although Clinton would probably win, it would be a close election and the Republicans would probably keep the Senate and definitely the House. Trump won the election and the Republicans kept the Senate and the House.

Set forth below are Congressman Bonker’s thoughts on what he believes the Trump election means for future US Trade Policy regarding China.

‘Election Results: U.S. China Relationship

Prepared by: Congressmen Don Bonker (Democrat)

Winston Churchill’s characterization of “democracy as the worst form of government except for all the others” was on full display in America’s 2016 presidential election. Yesterday’s torrent of election results is revealing of America’s challenges ahead, not only domestically but internationally. This report is focused on how the election results will affect the U.S. – China relationship.

CANDIDATES WEBSITE/POSITIONS ON CHINA

Hillary Clinton

Increase cooperation in areas of common interest

Reinforce alliances in the Asia-Pacific

Ratchet up the U.S. deterrent against Chinese cyberattacks

Take a stronger stance against China’s human rights record

Donald Trump

Increase U.S. military presence in and around the South China Sea

Investigate and punish China for unfair trade practices

Designate China a currency manipulator

Ratchet up the U.S. deterrent against Chinese cyberattacks

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS. U.S. presidents are not elected by the popular vote but the so-called Electoral College – each of the 50 states select “electors” equal to the number of Congressmen — that determines the outcome. The margin is significant in that a sweeping victory with over 300 electoral votes will demonstrate a public mandate that will make the newly elected Presidents’ governing more effective. This year, Donald Trump’s victory with 289 electoral votes [which is now with Michigan and Arizona 309 votes] is not a big margin but his party being in control of both the Senate and House of Representatives, is a sufficient mandate, something of a populist uprising not seen in recent years.

The election of Donald Trump was unexpected and shocking, even troubling to many in the U.S. and around the world. The electoral vote is revealing of why and how he won the election – his anti-trade and immigration messages resonated in the four or five rust-belt states that were expected to vote for Hillary Clinton. Not unlike the Brexit vote, he played to the anger and fear that was directed at Wall Street and Washington, D.C., a movement that will definitely take the country in a new and perilous direction.

Most disconcerting is how a President Trump will conduct foreign policy given that he has no experience compared to Hillary Clinton, who served as Secretary of State and was expected to continue the Obama Administration’s policies and alliances with other countries. The U.S. China relationship is all about economics and trade, so his Seven-Step Trade Plan is an indication of what lies ahead:

Immediate withdraw from TPP and a renegotiation of NAFTA.

Appoint the “toughest and smartest trade negotiators.

Direct Department of Commerce to “identify every violation of trade agreements a foreign country is currently using to harm our worker” and direct all Federal agencies to use “every tool under American and international law” to end abuses.

Instruct the Treasury Department to label China a currency manipulator, promising that any international devaluation would be met with sharply through tariffs and taxes.

The U.S. Trade Representatives would be instructed to bring trade cases against Beijing under both U.S. laws and the WTO.

If China does not stop its illegal activities, Trump said he would invoke specific safeguards and tariff protections under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.

U.S. China Relationship

In past years, presidential candidates have been known for their “tough talk on China” during campaigns but eventually succumb to the geopolitical realities once they become president. Donald Trump has gone way beyond tough talk in that he has been relentless in his China bashing and threats to take punishing actions based on unfair trade practices.

More alarming have been his comments threatening the U.S. – China relationship, on one occasion stating that “I’d love to have a trade war with China…if we did no business with China, frankly we will save a lot of money.” This hopefully is more about rhetoric than policy and a sitting President and his advisors will be more realistic and engage China in ways that will be mutually beneficial.

Ultimately, it’s not so much about the rhetoric and issues but the relationship between the two heads of state. President Obama and President Xi Jinping had a “trust” working relationship that may not go as easily with Donald Trump, but he is a master negotiator who knows how to work out deals with others. Much will also depend on who will be his cabinet ministers and senior advisors.

U.S. – International. Donald Trump’s election has many world leaders concerned given his pledge of radical actions that will project a different America. For the past 50 years, America has been the undisputed leader worldwide but that is about to change, partly because both Donald Trump’s election is rooted in American anxiety, placing the blame on globalization and trade deals for job losses and economic hardship. In recent years partisanship and politicalizing of U.S. foreign policy has intensified in a way that inhibits a President’s ability maintain America’s leadership globally.

What does this mean in terms of America’s leadership internationally? The reverberating message and new mandate that comes out of the election may be alarming to foreign leaders in that a Trump Administration’s foreign policy will be unpredictable, to be sure, on both the economic and geopolitical fronts that will lead to greater uncertainty. It will definitely be more protectionist given Mr. Trump’s ranting that trade deals have caused job losses and economic hardship. More perplexing is whether a Trump presidency will abandon America’s alliances and commitments and embark on a course that is more self-serving.

Regardless of who was elected, one of the realities will be China possibly surpassing America as the world’s most powerful nation, which will be a dramatic wake-up call for a country that has proudly embraced this status for the past hundred years. A Trump presidency taking the country down the path of isolationism may have America backing away from its global responsibilities compared to China’s highly focused set of objectives and its growing presence internationally. Indeed, China has wisely avoided involvement in geopolitical and security issues, such as the Middle East, and instead is concentrating on economic and investment development, which rapidly advances their leadership standing around the world.

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

Two weeks before the election, the Democrats were expected to take control of the U. S. Senate hopefully gaining enough seats to be the Majority Party that would be fully supportive of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Instead the Republicans will now control both branches of the U.S. government. However, it will not represent a consensus or cooperation given the deep divisions within the Republican Party, particularly how the Trump candidacy shattered political convention by criticizing Congressional leaders and charting his own path

U.S. Senate. The Constitution specifies that one-third of the Senate positions are up every election year, which worked to the advantage of Democrats since most of the ballot positions were Republicans. Yet the election results favored the Republicans who will maintain their 51-45 advantage for the next two years. The Senate has the Constitutional authority to approve treaties and appointments to high-level positions and ambassadors. There should be cooperation, given that the same party controls both branches, but Donald Trump has defied the conventional approach to doing business, so this will add to the uncertainty.

House of Representatives. For the past six years the Republicans have been in control with a significant margin, despite divisions of within the Party that inhibits their ability to be productive. Prior to the election, the Republicans held 247 of the 435 seats that are up for election every year, a safe margin. While the Democrats did pick up eleven of the Republican held seats they will continue as the Minority Party for the next few years.

The same party in control of the White House and Congress would normally make for a productive session, but uncertainty lingers given the troubled relationship between Donald Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan. Prior to the elections, a fractured Republican Party has been unified only by its opposition to President Obama’s policies, like Obamacare, so many questions remain about how the Speaker will preside over his own problems as he prepares to work with a Trump Administration.

In contrast to Congressman Bonker, my belief is that the US China relationship may, in fact, work out better than people think under President Trump. While in China last month I met many Chinese who liked Trump, despite his trade policy, which was enlightening.

Although Trump will be tough in trade negotiations, Trump is a business man and likes to do deals. That means he is truly open to negotiations.

Also many Conservative publications, such as the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily (“IBD”), believe that Republican Congressional leaders, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, may be able to prevent Trump from starting an all-out, hot, trade war against China.

But the US China cold trade war will definitely continue as there will be more US trade actions against China, and more Chinese trade actions against the US. Both countries will feel the pain.

But the relationship will become even more complicated as the EC in response to the WTO December 11, 2016 deadline to grant China market economy status proposed on November 9th amending its antidumping and countervailing law to provide that although for WTO members normal value is determined on the basis of actual prices and costs in the foreign market, in certain circumstances, e.g., China, where prices and costs are distorted because of government intervention and not free market forces, the EC Commission can look at prices and costs outside China.

EC PROPOSES CHANGES TO ITS ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING LAW TO IN EFFECT CONTINUE TO TREAT CHINA AS A NONMARKET ECONOMY COUNTRY

On November 9, 2016 the European Commission issued the attached proposed “Regulation of the European Parliament and Of The Council,” ec-china-market-economy-regs, on the way to calculate normal value for certain nonmarket economy countries, specifically China.

The EC Commission has proposed amending its antidumping law to provide that although for WTO members normal value is determined on the basis of actual prices and costs in the foreign market, in certain circumstances, where prices and costs are distorted because of government intervention and not free market forces, e.g., China, the EC Commission can look at prices and costs outside China, stating specifically if:

domestic prices and costs would not provide a reasonable basis to determine the normal value. This could be the case, for instance, when prices or costs are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by government intervention. Relevant considerations in this respect include, for instance, the fact that the market in question is to a significant extent served by enterprises which operate under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance of the authorities of the exporting country; the state presence in firms allowing the state to interfere with respect to prices or costs; the existence of public policies or measures discriminating in favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influencing free market forces; and the access to finance granted by institutions implementing public policy objectives.

In such circumstances, it would be inappropriate to use domestic prices and costs to determine the value at which the like product should be normally sold (“the normal value”) and a new provision (Article 2(6)a) stipulates that the normal value would instead be constructed on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks. For this purpose, the sources that may be used would include undistorted international prices, costs, or benchmarks, or corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country with a similar level of economic development as the exporting country.

This methodology would allow the Commission to establish and measure the actual magnitude of dumping being practised in normal market conditions absent distortions.

For the sake of transparency and efficiency, the Commission services intend to issue public reports describing the specific situation concerning the market circumstances in any given country or sector. Of importance, the EU industry would be in a position to rely on and refer to the information contained in these reports when alleging in a complaint or a request for review that the domestic prices and costs in the exporting country are unsuitable to determine the normal value. Such reports and the evidence on which it is based would also be placed on the file of any investigation relating to that country or sector so that all interested parties would be in a position to express their views and comments. . . .

In the light of experience gained in past proceedings, it is appropriate to clarify the circumstances in which significant distortions affecting to a considerable extent free market forces may be deemed to exist. In particular, it is appropriate to clarify that this situation may be deemed to exist, inter alia, when reported prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials, are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by government intervention. It is further appropriate to clarify that in considering whether or not such a situation exists regard may be had, inter alia, to the potential impact of the following: the market in question is to a significant extent served by enterprises which operate under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance of the authorities of the exporting country; state presence in firms allowing the state to interfere with respect to prices or costs; public policies or measures discriminating in favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influencing free market forces; and access to finance granted by institutions implementing public policy objectives. It is further appropriate to provide that the Commission services may issue a report describing the specific situation concerning these criteria in a certain country or a certain sector; that such report and the evidence on which it is based may be placed on the file of any investigation relating to that country or sector . . . .

It is further appropriate to recall that costs should normally be calculated on the basis of records kept by the exporter or producer under investigation. However, where there are significant distortions in the exporting country with the consequence that costs reflected in the records of the party concerned are artificially low, such costs may be adjusted or established on any reasonable basis, including information from other representative markets or from international prices or benchmarks. In the light of experience gained in past proceedings, it is appropriate to further clarify that, for the purposes of applying the provisions introduced by this regulation, due account should be taken of all relevant evidence, including relevant assessment reports regarding the circumstances prevailing on the domestic market of the exporting producers and the evidence on which they are based, which has been placed on the file, and upon which interested parties have had an opportunity to . . .

Article 1

Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 is amended as follows:

In Article 2 the following paragraph 6a is inserted:

‘6a. (a) In case it is determined, when applying this provision or any other relevant provision of this Regulation, that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence of significant distortions, the normal value shall be constructed on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks. For this purpose, the sources that may be used include undistorted international prices, costs, or benchmarks, or corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country with a similar level of economic development as the exporting country, provided the relevant cost data are readily available. The constructed normal value shall include a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits.

Significant distortions for the product concerned within the meaning of point (a) may be deemed to exist, inter alia, when reported prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials, are not the result of free market forces as they are affected by government intervention. In considering whether or not significant distortions exist regard may be had, inter alia, to the potential impact of the following: the market in question is to a significant extent served by enterprises which operate under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance of the authorities of the exporting country; state presence in firms allowing the state to interfere with respect to prices or costs; public policies or measures discriminating in favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influencing free market forces; and access to finance granted by institutions implementing public policy objectives.

In Article 11(4), the following subparagraph is added:

‘In the case of a transition from a normal value calculated pursuant to the former Articles 2(7)(a) or 2(7)(b) to a normal value calculated pursuant to paragraphs 1 to 6a of Article 2, any review pursuant to this paragraph shall be deferred to the date on which the first expiry review following such transition is initiated.’

On November 7, 2016, in the attached fact sheet, factsheet-multiple-ctl-plate-ad-prelim-11082016, Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary determinations in the antidumping duty investigations of imports of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Austria, Belgium, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.

For Austria, the antidumping rate is 41.97%. For Belgium, the antidumping rate ranges from 2.41 to 8.5%. For China, the antidumping rate is 68.27%. For France, the antidumping rate ranges from 4.26 to 12.97%. For Germany, the antidumping rate ranges from 0 to 6.56%. For Italy, the antidumping rate ranges from 6.10 to 130.63%. For Japan, the antidumping rate ranges from 14.96 to 48.64%. For Korea the antidumping rate is 6.82%. For Taiwan, the antidumping rate ranges from 3.51 to 28%.

On October 24, 2016, Commerce in the attached fact sheet, pipe, announced its affirmative final determinations in the antidumping duty (AD) investigations of imports of circular welded carbon- quality steel pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, and countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of imports of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from Pakistan.

For Oman, the antidumping rate is 7.24%. For Pakistan, the antidumping rate is 11.08% and the countervailing duty rate is 64.81%. For United Arab Emirates the antidumping rates range from 5.58% to 6.43%. For Vietnam the antidumping rate ranges from 0 to 113%

FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES

UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES

With the election of Donald Trump, as stated in my last newsletter, the Universal Trade War will continue. In addition to the US bringing antidumping and countervailing duty cases, countries around the World, such as EC, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia Thailand, South Africa, and Vietnam, all are filing antidumping and countervailing duty cases against each other and the United States. These countries have adopted the US law which finds dumping in 90% of the cases. The US and the EC have created a Frankenstein in the antidumping law and the whole World has adopted it.

Compromise is the best way to settle trade disputes, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to settle US antidumping and other trade cases. What is “fair” trade for the United States is “fair” trade for every other country. Many countries want to make their industries Great again.

Because of this situation, this part of the newsletter will concentrate on antidumping and countervailing duty cases in other countries.

CHINA

Set forth below are two articles by Chinese trade lawyers on how to respond in Chinese trade cases against the United States and other countries.

ROLAND ZHU, ALLBRIGHT LAW FIRM

A General Description of Anti-Dumping Regulation

of the People’s Republic of China

by Roland Zhu, Allbright Law Firm

In order to maintain foreign trade order and fair competition, China’s Ministry of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as “MOFCOM”) is responsible for conducting anti-dumping investigations against foreign exporters in case that imported products enter the market of the People’s Republic of China by way of dumping, and cause material damage or constitute a threat of material damage to an already established domestic industry, or cause a material impediment to the establishment of a domestic industry in accordance with the Foreign Trade Law of the People’s Republic of China, Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Anti-Dumping and Interim Rules on Placing Cases on File for Antidumping Investigations, which are effective and applicable law.

Where there exists dumping or may exist dumping, an anti-dumping investigation may arise. A complete set of anti-dumping investigation procedure usually follows these steps:

MOFCOM may place a case on file for antidumping investigations upon the application of an applicant; it may also place a case on file on its own initiative for anti-dumping investigations.

MOFCOM shall, within 60 days as of its receipt of the application letter and the relevant evidence submitted by the applicant, examine whether the application is filed by the domestic industry or filed by representing the domestic industry, the contents of the application letter and the evidence attached to it, etc., and shall decide to initiate an investigation or not. Prior to the decision to initiate an investigation, the government of the exporting country (region) concerned shall be notified.

MOFCOM shall publish the decision to initiate an investigation and notify the applicant, the known exporters and importers, the government of the exporting country (region) and other interested organizations and parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the interested parties”). As soon as the decision to initiate an investigation is published, MOFCOM shall provide the full text of the written application to the known exporters and the government of the exporting country (region).

MOFCOM may conduct an investigation and collect information from the interested parties by, among other methods, sending questionnaires, using samples, holding public hearings and making on-the-spot verification.

MOFCOM shall, on the basis of its findings, make a preliminary determination on dumping and injury, as well as on whether there exists a causal link between dumping and injury. The preliminary determination shall be published by MOFCOM.

In cases where a preliminary determination on dumping, injury and the causal link between the two is affirmative, MOFCOM shall conduct further investigations on dumping, the dumping margin, the injury and its degree, and, make a final determination on the basis of its findings. The final determination shall be published by MOFCOM. Before the final determination is made, MOFCOM shall inform all known interested parties of the essential facts on which the final determination is based.

An anti-dumping investigation shall be concluded within 12 months from the date of publication of the decision to initiate the investigation, and the period may be extended in special circumstances, but in no case shall the extension be more than 6 months.

The anti-dumping measures taken by MOFCOM shall include provisional anti-dumping measures, price undertakings and anti-dumping duties. The period for applying the provisional anti-dumping measures shall not exceed four months from the effective date set forth in the public notice regarding the decision on provisional anti-dumping measures, and, in special circumstances, may be extended to nine months. The period for the levy of an anti-dumping duty and fulfillment of a price undertaking shall not exceed five years, and may be extended if, as a result of the review, it is determined that the termination of the anti-dumping duty would possibly lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

The review proceedings shall be conducted with reference to the relevant provisions of Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Anti-Dumping. Any review shall be concluded within 12 months from the date of the decision of initiation of such a review.

Answers to General Questions about Chinese Antidumping cases are listed below or you may refer to the general description of Chinese anti-dumping regulations.

Information on recent cases filed in China against other countries

Answer: Please see the table below, which summarizes recent cases filed in China during the year of 2016 against other countries are:

What agency makes the AD and CVD decision? What agency makes the injury determination? How long does the initial investigation take? Are there mandatory companies?

Answer: The Trade Remedy and Investigation Bureau of the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (the “Bureau”) makes the AD and CVD decisions as well as the injury determinations. An anti-dumping or countervailing investigation shall be concluded within 12 months from the date of publication of the decision to initiate the investigation, and the period may be extended in special circumstances, but in no case shall the extension be more than 6 months. There are mandatory companies in China’s AD investigation. The applicant, the known exporters and importers, the government of the exporting country (region) and other interested organizations and parties can register to the Bureau in order to participate in this anti-dumping investigation within 20 days from the date of promulgation of the initial announcement. The Bureau selects the respondents among those who have submitted dumping sampling questionnaire by using sampling survey. For other interested parties, including those are not chosen to answer the investigation questionnaire and those don’t register to the Bureau, the Bureau may make determinations on the basis of the facts already known and the best information available.

Is the Chinese antidumping and countervailing duty law prospective or retrospective, retroactive liability? Is there a public interest test? Are there annual reviews? How long do the orders stay in place?

Answer: For retrospective issues you mentioned above, according to the Article 93 of Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China, Chinese antidumping and countervailing duty law shall not be retroactive, but the regulations formulated specially for the purpose of better protecting the rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations are excepted. The period for the levy of an anti-dumping duty shall not exceed 5 years, and may be extended as appropriate if, as a result of the review, it is determined that the termination of the anti-dumping duty would possibly lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. A midterm review may be conducted upon request by the interested parties and on the basis of examination of the relevant evidence submitted by the interested parties.

When calculating the Normal Value, the following methods are chosen by MOFCOM:

Domestic Sales Price

Constructed Value=Production Cost + S G & A + Reasonable Profit

Export Price to a Third Country (Region)

In terms of category of AD Duty, China’s normal practice is to assign antidumping rates to producers, not trading companies. And there are 3 different types of rates for the enterprises to bear:

Individual Rate

Weighted Average Rate

Country-wide Rate (Best Information Available, BIA)

When it comes to Injury Analysis, several factors shall be considered by MOFCOM: Imported Volume, Imported Price and other factors such as actual and potential decline of domestic industry in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investment or utilization of capacity, etc., factors affecting domestic prices; the magnitude of the margin of dumping, the actual or potential negative effects of the dumped imports on the domestic industry’s cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability of capital raising or investment, etc.

Cumulative Assessment means that the margin of dumping established in relation to the dumped imports from each country (region) is no less than 2 percent, and the volume of such imports from each country (region) is not negligible. It is negligible if the volume of the dumped imports from a particular country (region) is found to account for less than 3 percent of the total imports of the like products, unless countries (regions) which individually account for less than 3 percent of the total imports of the like products collectively account for more than 7 percent of the total imports of the like products.

AD Investigating Procedures

In China, the AD Investigating Authority is MOFCOM Trade Remedy and Investigation Bureau who is not only in charge of determination of dumping margin but also in charge of determination of injury and causation. 

Following procedures in a Chinese AD Investigation Case: Filing of the Petition are:

Within 10 working days after the deadline of filing the responding registration, the investigating authority will issue questionnaires to the registered companies. If the registered companies are numerous, the investigating authority will use sampling (usually 2 mandatory companies for each country/area).

It is important to note that foreign producers/foreign exporters must submit their responding registration documents to the investigating authority within 20 days as of the date of initiation through a PRC practicing attorney or by themselves. If they fail to do so, foreign producers will be treated as non-cooperative and MOFCOM will use the best information available (“BIA”) to make determination.

For the respondents, when submitting Questionnaire Response, they need to keep in mind that the questionnaire response must be submitted to the investigating authority within 37 days as of the date of the issuance of the questionnaires. The responding companies may apply for extension and the investigating authorities usually only give an extension of 7 days. And the questionnaire responses must be submitted through a PRC practicing attorney. After receiving the questionnaire responses, the investigating authority will review them and issue the supplementary questionnaires if certain questions require clarification or explanation further.

In an Interim Review, an application for interim review shall be filed within 30 days as of the expiration date of each year after the effective date of AD measures. The producers applying for interim reviews must have exported the subject merchandise to China within a period of 12 months prior to the application, and the export referred must have been made in sufficient quantities.

Key Points of AD Defense Strategies

Establishing an overall responding strategy before submitting the questionnaire responses to MOFCOM;

On October 26, 2016, the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled “Homeland Security Probes U.S. Aluminum Firms Over Chinese Imports” reported that Federal investigators had launched an investigation into whether Liu Zhongtian, a Chinese billionaire and the founder and chairman of aluminum giant China Zhongwang Holdings Ltd., was engaged in transshipment of aluminum extrusions to the United States in violation of US civil and criminal laws.

Commerce is investigating whether a New Jersey company, Aluminum Shapes LLC, imported pallets to remelt as a way to avoid a countervailing duty rate of 374%, part of a broader probe into Mr. Liu’s activities. The Commerce Department said preliminary findings would be released in coming weeks. Aluminum Shapes last month denied that the pallets were used as raw material for its plant.

Homeland Security is also investigating whether nearly one million tons of aluminum shipped to Aluminicaste Fundición de México, a factory once owned by Mr. Liu’s son, were part of an effort to evade U.S. tariffs by routing the metal through another country to disguise its origins.

SECTION 337 AND IP CASES

NEW 337 CASES

OPTICAL FIBERS

On October 31, 2016, DSM Deso Tech, Inc. and DSM IP Assets B.V. filed a 337 patent case against UV Curable Coatings for Optical Fibers, Coated Optical Fibers, and Products from China. The relevant parts of the ITC notice along with the names of the Chinese respondent companies are below.

On October 27, 2016, Celanese filed a 337 patent case against High Potency Sweeteners, ACE-K, from China. The relevant parts of the ITC notice along with the names of the Chinese respondent companies are below.

On October 14, 2016, Qualcomm filed a 337 patent case against Mobile Electronic Devices from China. The relevant parts of the ITC notice along with the names of the Chinese respondent companies are below.

If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump and Trade, US trade policy, TPP, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, trade adjustment assistance, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law in general, please feel free to contact me.

This blog post contains several new article and articles that have been posted on the Harris Moure blog, www.chinalawblog.com from the HM Trade Practice Group, including Adams Lee, Emily Lawson and myself. The new articles also reflect my discussions during my recent three-week trip to China meeting with various Chinese companies, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”), and Chinese trade lawyers.

The most important point is that the US China Trade War is expanding and has now become a universal trade war. Although the US continues to bring numerous antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cases against China, the Chinese government is now bringing and will bring numerous AD and CVD cases against the US.

In the recent Chinese antidumping case against Distiller Grains from the US, the Chinese government has levied a 33% rate against $1.6 billion in US exports to China. There are rumors that the Chinese government may soon bring AD and CVD cases targeting $15 billion in US exports of soybeans to China.

Meanwhile numerous countries have adopted their own AD and CVD laws modeled on the US and EU and are bringing cases not only against China, but also against the US.

The only recent trade developments that would break the retaliation cycle are the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the TTIP deal with Europe and both trade agreements are in serious trouble.

In addition, set forth below are articles on how to spot an AD and CVD trade case coming and what do when your company is a target of a trade case, magnesium and steel cases, trade cases against Europe, and Trade Adjustment Assistance by David Holbert, who heads the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center. In addition, there are a number of articles on Customs law, False Claims Act, including an FCA case against Furniture and Customs enforcement action against Honey. Finally, there is an article on recent Second Circuit Decision in the Vitamin C Antitrust Case and the antidumping back story, a Criminal Trade Secrets case, a new 337 case and the Section 337 article translated into Chinese.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my new e-mail address bill@harrismoure.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRADE POLICY AND TPP

US CHINA ANTIDUMPING TRADE WAR IS NOW A UNIVERSAL ANTIDUMPING TRADE WAR

As Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton duel during the Presidential debate about who can be more protectionist, during my recent trip to China I learned that what was once a US China Trade War has now become a universal trade war. Country after country have adopted the US and EC Antidumping law and are filing case after case against other countries and the US.

Thus countries, such as EC, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia Thailand, South Africa, and Vietnam, all are filing antidumping and countervailing duty cases against each other and the United States. These countries have adopted the US law which finds dumping in 90% of the cases. The US and the EC have created a Frankenstein in the antidumping law and the whole World has adopted it.

Although Donald Trump, Hilary Clinton and many US politicians want to adopt a mercantilist trade policy which favors pushing exports and protecting US industries from imports, the US politicians simply do not understand retaliation. What the US can do to other countries, those countries can do back. President Reagan understood the retaliation danger of protectionism and a mercantilist trade policy, but many present day US politicians do not. So all of these countries are following the US lead and implementing a mercantilist trade policy.

Free trade agreements, such as the TPP and the TTIP, which would break this cycle are now all in deep trouble as each country wants to put its industries first and make their country and industries great again. The rise in nationalism results in trade wars in which country after country will fire trade guns against each other. As Jack Ma of Alibaba recently mentioned on CNN, real wars start when trade stops. See http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/02/technology/jack-ma-alibaba-g20/

During this trip, officials at the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) told me that more trade cases will be coming next year against the US. In fact, there are rumors that the Chinese government will soon bring an AD and CVD case targeting $15 billion in US soybean exports to China. This is the number one US export to China. Now that China is bringing more trade cases against the US, these cases will hurt US companies and the jobs that go with them.

On the US side, the election of either Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton in November will mean more US trade cases next year against not only China, but many other countries as well.

On September 22, 2016, MOFCOM in China initiated an escape clause/safeguard action against Sugar from Brazil, Cuba, Guatemala, Australia, South Korea and Thailand alleging tariffs up to 155.90%.

On September 15, 2016, India brought its own antidumping case against Polybutadiene Rubber from South Korea, Russia, South Africa, Iran and Singapore.

Taiwan has brought a Steel antidumping case against China.

More and more cases will be filed in 2017 around the World and many will target the United States, China, and numerous other countries. Compromise is the best way to settle trade disputes, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to settle US antidumping and other trade cases. What is “fair” trade for the United States is “fair” trade for every other country. Many countries want to make their industries Great again.

TPP IN THE LAME DUCK KEEPS ON TICKING

As mentioned in my last blog post, I believe that if Hilary Clinton is elected, President Obama will push for the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) to come up for a vote during the Lame Duck Session. Many Congressional leaders appeared to oppose tbringing up TPP in the Lame Duck. But with Hilary Clinton’s resurgence in the Polls after the first debate, there is more talk about the TPP coming up in the Lame Duck, the period after the Presidential election and before the end of the year, as President Obama pushes hard for passage of the legislation.

Governor Kasich made clear that he feels “it’s his “responsibility and duty as a leader” — no matter the political cost — to help President Barack Obama push the Trans-Pacific Partnership through Congress.

Kasich stated that

“I have never been an ideological supporter of free trade. The ideologues used to come to me and be frustrated with me. But when you look at these agreements in a real sense – and this one is much different than even NAFTA.”

Kasich added that when Russian and Chinese leaders oppose the TPP, that is one reason to vote for the TPP, “We have to do this.”

Kasich further stated,

“This is the first time the candidates in both major political parties say they are opposed to free trade. It’s astounding to me. I welcome the fact that people will criticize me for putting my country ahead of my party.”

The interview came after Kasich met with President Obama in the Oval Office with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former George W. Bush administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and others for a meeting on the 12-nation Pacific Rim deal.

Kasich further stated:

“This is an opportunity for the Congress to carry out its responsibility. Frankly, if I have to come down here and spend some time lobbying my Republican colleagues, I’m more than glad to do that.

There’s definitely some people I can call and talk to. This is a big deal. I mean, if we were to just walk away with this — with both candidates saying they don’t want this — we turn our backs on Asia.

He also played down the political potency of Trump’s anti-trade position in manufacturing-heavy Ohio, saying it’s not why Trump might win the state.

On September 26, 2016, Robert Samuelson, a well-known economist, published an article entitled “Will TPP Rise from the Dead”, stating:

With Obama’s term ending and his already-modest influence eroding by the day, TPP seems dead. But it may still be in intensive care.

In a speech to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee whose jurisdiction includes trade agreements, said that the TPP could still be ratified in the lame-duck session after the election and before a new Congress takes office.

Samuelson went on to state that Brady gave two major reasons to approve the TPP.

First, geopolitical: The TPP would enhance US influence in the Pacific region and offset China’s growing economic and political power. TPP would give the United States a major role in regulating global commerce in the 21s century. The trade agreement codifies rules on “intellectual property” (patents, copyrights), data flows and state-owned firms

Ratification would be a strong signal to Asia that the United States intends to remain a Pacific power.

“The second reason is economic: Asia remains a fast-growing region. TPP would eliminate most tariffs among the 12 member countries, aiding American exporters in these markets. The advantage may be particularly important in services (tourism, consulting, finance and engineering), where U.S. firms are especially strong. In 2015, the United States had a $762 billion deficit in goods trade (machinery, steel, medical equipment) and a $262 billion surplus in services trade, leaving an overall deficit of $500 billion. According to the Peterson Institute, the 12 countries in the TPP accounted for about 36% of the world economy and 24% of global trade in 2014.”

Samuelson goes on to quote Brady on why he does not dismiss TPP’s prospects as bleak, “People change once they get into office.”

Samuelson then states:

Translation: The campaign’s anti-trade and anti-globalization rhetoric might recede before the realities of governing. Although Brady didn’t say so, one implication is that a victorious Hillary Clinton might put up only token opposition to TPP, both because the case for approval is strong and because she might feel obligated to Obama for his political support.

But Brady went on to state that getting a deal would be difficult. With many Democrats adamantly opposed to TPP, President Obama would need to rely on Republicans to approve the agreement. But if President Obama cannot round up enough Democratic votes to ensure victory, Republicans will not go out on a political limb and bring the agreement up during the Lame Duck.

“We are running out of time,” Brady told the Peterson audience. As Samuelson stated, “The TPP may yet wind up in the political morgue.”

TRADE

CHINA IMPORTS: KNOW YOUR RISKS

By Adams Lee, Harris Moure International Trade Group

Every year U.S. producers file 10-15 petitions asking the U.S. government to investigate whether certain products imported into the US are sold at unfair prices (antidumping or AD) or are unfairly subsidized (countervailing duty or CVD). Many of the AD/CVD cases target products imported from China. Odds are good that at least two new AD/CVD petitions will be filed by Halloween and as many as five by year end.

Our clients often ask our international trade lawyers how they can determine the likelihood of a AD/CVD petition that could adversely affect their ability to compete in the US market. Each AD/CVD petition is unique to the product and industry it covers, but most AD/CVD investigations fall within a handful of categories. Understanding what has led to the filing of previous AD/CVD petitions can help you as a producer, exporter, or importer, recognize if and when to expect a new AD/CVD petition that could directly affect you. The following are some of the indicators you should be checking to determine whether your imported into the USA product will be next.

The Regulars. Certain domestic industries have been frequent filers of AD/CVD actions. Companies in these industries are veterans of AD/CVD actions; they don’t ask if a new petition will be filed, only when it will be filed.

Steel of all types (carbon steel, stainless steel, flat products, pipe, rebar, wire rod, wire, etc.) from all over the world. The latest wave of steel AD/CVD investigations are being completed with high AD/CVD margins in most cases.

Softwood Lumber from Canada. The latest round of the US-Canada Lumber wars is set to begin as new AD/CVD petitions are likely to be filed in October 2016. Filing a new AD/CVD petition may be necessary to push US-Canada negotiations to a meaningful level.

The Big Box Effect. When Walmart, Lowes, or Target switch their sourcing of a product from a domestic manufacturer to a foreign (read Chinese) one, it is quite common for the jilted domestic supplier to file an AD/CVD petition in an effort to save their business. Boltless steel shelving units, wood flooring, ironing tables, and candles are all examples of this, and all involving products from China.

US Products Squeezed by Imports. It is not uncommon for an AD/CVD petition to be filed by a US producer that makes a higher quality product but is starting to lose out to foreign producers with lower quality but cheaper products. Frozen shrimp from multiple countries, garlic from China, and wooden bedroom furniture from China are some examples of this.

Pressure from Downstream Customers. Many AD/CVD petitions involve products that are material inputs used to make a downstream finished product. Petitions can be triggered by larger downstream producers switching to, or just threatening to switch to imports to pressure smaller upstream suppliers to lower prices. Many chemical products from China, tire products from China and other countries, kitchen racks from China are examples of this.

AD/CVD Actions on Upstream Products. Sometimes AD/CVD actions filed by other domestic industries trickle down and harm downstream domestic industries. For example, US wire rod producers filed AD/CVD petitions that resulted in AD/CVD duties against imported wire rod. But these wire rod duties ended up hurting US wire producers, who in turn filed their own AD/CVD duties against imported wire.

Dying Dinosaurs/Last Survivors. Some AD/CVD petitions are filed by the remaining members of a nearly extinct domestic industry dealing with decreasing demand and increased import pressure. Sometimes the AD/CVD actions allow the surviving US producers to stay in the US market protected from import competition. Examples of this are wooden bedroom furniture, magnesium and innersprings from China.

Other Countries’ AD/CVD actions. The US is not the only country that acts to protect its domestic industries from unfair foreign trade. AD/CVD actions filed in Canada, India, the EU, Brazil, and even China are warning signs of industries facing tight competitive pressure. Imports blocked from one market are often diverted to other available markets. A prime example of this are products from China which first had AD/CVD filed in the EU before the US took action.

All of the above scenarios are good indicators of an imminent filing of a new United States’ AD/CVD petition, so if you are seeing these market conditions in your industry, an AD/CVD petition is probably in your near future.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO WHEN THE CUSTOMS ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY BOGEYMAN IS COMING AFTER YOUR IMPORTED CHINA PRODUCTS

By Adams Lee, Harris Moure International Trade Group

In China Imports Know Your Risks (above), I wrote about how companies can recognize impending antidumping (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) petitions. In this post I address what you as an importer, exporter or foreign producer should do if you see an AD/CVD storm looming.

The first thing you should do is determine whether the AD/CVD petition will directly hit your primary operations. The second thing you should do is figure out how best to defend yourself interests if the AD/CVD petition is headed directly your way. The third thing you should do if you do get hit by AD/CVD duties is to figure out damage control going forward.

New AD/CVD Petition – Are my products affected? AD/CVD petitions include a proposed scope definition that identifies the products covered. AD/CVD scope definitions can be complicated and unclear. They may be broader or narrower than the Customs tariff classifications normally used to identify such imports. Even if you think your products are outside the scope of the petition, U.S. Customs may disagree. U.S. Customs commonly demands that you first pay an AD/CVD deposit, assuming that your products are within the scope of the AD/CVD petition, and then Customs will return your deposit only if you get a Department of Commerce (DOC) ruling that your products are actually outside the scope. For example, with aluminum extrusions from China, the DOC has received around a hundred scope ruling requests to clarify whether certain products are included or excluded from the scope of that order.

Once you know the scope definition, you can evaluate the degree to which the AD/CVD action could impact your business. Sometimes you and your customer can find alternatives to replace the subject AD/CVD products with either non-subject products or by your sourcing from non-subject countries. If you have options to switch away from the products covered by the AD/CVD action, it may not be necessary to participate in the AD/CVD investigation.

AD/CVD investigations – How to defend? If your product is squarely within the scope of the AD/CVD petition and the U.S. market is worth fighting for, you should determine the best way to prepare for the AD/CVD investigation. If you have enough time before a petition is filed, you theoretically can try to adjust your sales to remedy whatever is causing the dumped or subsidized sales, most commonly by raising your prices for certain products or customers or by modifying your production operations by lowering or reallocating costs. Unfortunately, most companies are not proactive about planning to avoid AD/CVD actions and instead react only after a petition is filed. We find this especially true of our clients that import from China, as opposed to Europe.

Once an AD/CVD investigation is initiated, foreign producers and exporters and US importers should try to defend their interests before the two agencies responsible for making AD/CVD determinations: The International Trade Commission (ITC) determines whether a domestic industry is injured or threatened with injury by reason of the subject imports and the Department of Commerce (DOC) determines how much the subject imports are dumped or subsidized.

In ITC investigations, the best defenses are presented when the foreign producers, US importers, and US purchasers can organize and explain why the subject imports should not be blamed for any decline in the domestic industry’s performance. Because the ITC examines a broad range of data regarding the US market for the subject product, a comprehensive explanation of relevant market conditions is necessary to a winning argument.

In DOC investigations, the foreign producer and exporters are the primary respondents to the DOC’s questionnaires. These companies must provide extensive corporate structure, sales and cost data, often through multiple rounds of questionnaires. The DOC uses the submitted data to calculate AD/CVD margins. Unaffiliated US importers usually do not need to submit data in DOC investigations and reviews, but they often will closely monitor the DOC’s proceedings because they will ultimately be responsible for paying the AD/CVD duties. See Sourcing Product From China: You Should Know About Importer of Record Liability.

The key to any AD/CVD defense is participating fully in both the DOC’s and the ITC’s investigations. If you don’t participate, you have no chance of winning. If a party does not respond on time or with complete responses, the DOC and the ITC can apply the adverse facts available that inevitably lead to higher AD/CVD margins. US importers should at least actively monitor DOC’s proceedings because their final AD/CVD liability often depends on how well the Chinese producers and exporters are able to respond to DOC’s questionnaires. It is not uncommon for the Chinese producer or exporter to mount a weak or no defense, leaving the U.S. importer essentially “holding the bag.” There are many things you can and should do to try to prevent this from happening to you.

How to Plan for Life with AD/CVD. The overwhelming majority of AD/CVD petitions lead to orders for imposing AD/CVD duties. But depending on the scope definition of the AD/CVD order, it may be possible for you to maintain your business operations by identifying alternative out-of-scope products or by switching your product sourcing to a non-subject country. But in switching sourcing, US importers should be careful to avoid actions that could be considered schemes designed primarily to evade AD/CVD duties, as the DOC can extend orders through circumvention investigations. Customs too can conduct its own investigation of duty evasion allegations.

Also, because the United States uses a retrospective AD/CVD system, foreign suppliers and US importers have the opportunity each year to try to lower their dumping margin. Since AD/CVD duties are “remedial”, foreign producers and U.S. importers have ample opportunity to adjust their production and sales operations so that they can sell “fairly” to the U.S. market, as defined by the U.S. trade laws and with proper planning and disciplined execution, companies can sometimes make even minor adjustments to reduce or eliminate their AD/CVD duty liability.

Bottom Line: You are not without defenses when the AD/CVD bogeyman appears to be heading for you. There are things you can do both to stop it from attacking your business and things you can do to restore your business once attacked.

Editor’s Note: This post focuses on products exported from China to the United States, but its advice applies with equal force to products exported from any other country to the United States and with nearly equal force to products exported from any other country to any other country that also has AD/CVD sanctions.

CAFC MAGNESIUM METAL DECISION

On October 6, 2016, in the attached decision, cafc-magnesium, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commerce Department’s decision that replacement of stainless steel retorts used to produce magnesium metal was an overhead expense and not a direct cost in the Magnesium Metal from China antidumping case.

STEEL TRADE CASES

CARBON AND ALLOY STEEL CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE FROM CHINA AND KOREA

On September 7, 2016, in the attached fact sheet, clt-plate-cvd-prelim-fs-090716, Commerce issued an affirmative preliminary CVD determination in the initial investigation of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from China and a negative preliminary determination in the CVD investigation of imports from Korea.

China CVD rate best on all facts available is 210.50% and Korea’s CVD rate is 0.

CARBON AND ALLOY STEEL CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE FROM BRAZIL, SOUTH AFRICA AND TURKEY

On September 16, 2016, in the attached fact sheet, factsheet-multiple-ctl-plate-ad-prelim-091616, Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary determinations in the AD investigations of imports of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey.

On September 12, 2016, in the attached fact sheet, factsheet-prc-stainless-steel-sheet-strip-ad-prelim-091216, Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary determination in the AD investigation of imports of stainless steel sheet and strip from China. The antidumping rates range from 63.86% to 76.64%.

TRADE CASES AGAINST EUROPE

EUROPEAN TARGETS IN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO GET BACK IN THE US MARKET AGAIN

Recently, there have been several articles about the sharp rise in AD and CVD/trade remedy cases in the last year. By the second half of 2016, the US Government has reported that twice as many AD and CVD cases have been initiated in 2015-2016 as in 2009.

China is not the only target. AD cases have been recently filed against a number of European countries, including Carbon and Alloy Steel Plate from Austria, Belgium, Germany, and Italy; Steel Flanges from Italy and Spain; and Rubber from Poland.

In addition, there are outstanding AD and CVD orders against Germany on brass sheet and strip, seamless pipe, sodium nitrite and non-oriented electrical steel. In addition to Germany, other EU Countries have been hit on various steel products, including a number of stainless steel products, from Spain, Belgium and Italy; brass sheet and strip from France and Italy, isocyanurates from Spain, pasta from Italy, paper from Portugal and Uranium from France. The oldest US AD order in place today is pressure sensitive plastic tape from Italy, which was issued in 1977.

Under US law Commerce determines whether dumping is taking place. Dumping is defined as selling imported goods at less than fair value or less than normal value, which in general terms means lower than prices in the home/foreign market or below the fully allocated cost of production. Antidumping duties are levied to remedy the unfair act by raising the US price so that the products are fairly traded.

Commerce also imposes Countervailing Duties to offset any foreign subsidies provided by foreign governments so as to raise the price of the subsidized imports.

AD and CVD duties can only be imposed if there is injury to the US industry, which is determined by the ITC. But in determining injury, the law directs the ITC to cumulate, that is add together all the imports of the same product from the various foreign countries.

The real question many companies may have is how can AD and CVD rates be reduced so that the European company can start exporting to the US again. US AD and CVD laws are considered remedial, not punitive statutes. Thus, every year in the month in which the AD or CVD order was issued, Commerce gives the parties, including the domestic producers, foreign producers and US importers, the right to request a review investigation based on sales of imports that entered the US in the preceding year.

Thus, the AD order on electrical steel from Germany was issued in December 2014. In December 2016, the German producer can request a review investigation of the electrical steel that entered, was actually imported into, the US during the period December 1, 2015 to November 31, 2016.

EU companies may ask that it is too difficult to export a 17 metric ton container of covered product to the US, requesting a nonaffiliated importer to put up an AD of 50 to over 100%, which can require a payment of $1 million USD or more. In contrast to European law, however, the US AD and CVD law is retrospective. Thus the importer posts a cash deposit when it imports products under an AD or CVD order, and the importer will get back the difference plus interest at the end of the review investigation.

More importantly, through a series of cases, Commerce has let foreign producers export smaller quantities of the product to use as a test sale in a review investigation if all other aspects of the sale are normal. Thus in a chemical case, we had the exporter put a metric ton of the chemical in question in a container with other products and that metric ton served as the test sale to establish the new AD rate.

EU Companies may also ask how we can make sure that we are not dumping. The answer is dump proofing and computer programs. In contrast to China, EU companies are considered market economy companies and, therefore, Commerce must use actual prices and costs in the European country to determine whether it is dumping or not. Computer programs can be used to reduce the dumping margin significantly by modeling US prices and EU home market prices to eliminate or significantly reduce antidumping rates.

How successful can companies be in reviews? In one EU Steel case, we dropped the dumping rate from over 17% in the initial investigation to 0% in the review investigation. In a chemical from China case, we dropped a dumping rate of over 200% to 0%, allowing the Chinese company to become the exclusive exporter of the product for decades per order of the US government.

Playing the AD and CVD game in review investigations can significantly reduce AD and CVD rates and get the EU company back in the US market again

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES

David Holbert, who heads the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (“NWTAAC”), is writing a series of posts on the NWTAAC website on how Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies helps injured companies injured by imports. This is the first post.

Imports are Like a Thousand Flash Floods Injuring US Companies That Are Not Competitive

The issue of trade competition and lost jobs is well discussed in the media. I work with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who are negatively affected by trade competition, what is often called “trade impact” in policy lingo. It’s a big issue. According to the U.S Trade Representative, the United States’ 30 million SMEs account for nearly two-thirds of net new private sector jobs in recent decades.

For large companies or from a macro-economic perspective, import competition may seem like a rising tide – one that can be anticipated, prepared for or proactively mitigated. For small and medium-sized businesses, not equipped with diverse product lines, resources or change acumen, import competition feels more like a flash flood.

What is it like for those companies? When trade impact hits, sales drop off, often suddenly.

Contract manufacturers build to specification for customers, often larger companies. For this group, trade impact could mean the loss of a major customer moving operations to a foreign country (and finding parts suppliers there), or simply an importer arriving on the scene with lower cost products.

For a consumer products company, trade impact will probably first arrive with falling sales to the big retail chains since they are the most sensitive to supplier prices.

For a commodity producer things are a little more predictable. There may be a change in currency valuation or the rise of a new industry in a foreign country. Regardless, these highly price sensitive markets will suddenly have a lower price option.

Commercial products producers will usually have more time. When imports arrive they will sell to generally more informed customers who usually value factors other than price. But the fall will come, just more slowly.

Sales could fall off for many reasons. How do you know its trade related? You ask or you ask around. It shouldn’t take long to find out.

Imports arrive product by product. Companies move offshore factory by factory. A domestic company makes that product, is part of the supply chain needed to make the product or is part of that commodity industry. When the imports arrive (or the factory moves), that one company or set of suppliers or community of producers is directly in the way. All of this happens in what can seem to be a relatively normal looking manufacturing neighborhood. Across the street there might be a company making another product that is experiencing no trade competition. Next door a third company might have gone through trade impact years ago and has adjusted. For small and medium sized companies, trade impact can be surprisingly direct and specific.

Here are some examples of what I’m talking about.

A commercial products company makes a specialized tool. A couple of other U.S. and European companies make similar products with some parity between price and features. One year they are at the big industry trade show and see a product, similar to theirs (and the others), but priced about 40% lower. Three months later sales started slipping.

A contract manufacturer that machines metal parts had gravitated away from stainless steel to titanium and built for several competitors in the same industry. Foreign producers had mastered stainless steel over the last decade. But as of a recent year, those producers finally mastered titanium as well. One by one, the manufacturer’s customers started buying imports. Once one did, it had a cost advantage, so the others had to go along also.

A nut grower was maintaining a slim profit. Then, a certain country decided to incentivize its nut growers to achieve more efficiency and export capability. It took a while, but when the imported nuts started arriving, they were at a price point below break-even for the domestic producer.

A safety products producer sold through a variety of retailers. One year, seemingly out of the blue, the big box stores stopped ordering. It didn’t take long to figure out why. A similar imported product was on the shelves at about half the price.

In future posts I’ll cover the steps to recovery. They are many effective tools in the economic recovery toolbox. In many cases, companies that employed these resources are now unrecognizable through increased scale and product changes. Interestingly, a surprising number become significant exporters.

My role at the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center is to help small and medium-sized companies that are negatively impacted by trade competition through grants of up to $75,000. Our non-profit organization administers a federal program serving companies in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska. You can learn more about us at NWTAAC.org.

CUSTOMS LAW

IMPORTING GOODS FROM CHINA: THE RISKS ARE RISING

By Adams Lee, Harris Moure International Trade Group

Last month I wrote about how importers from China need to be on their guard since U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has implemented new regulations to investigate allegations of antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) evasion. See Importing From China: One More (New) Thing You Need To Know.

It didn’t take long, as U.S. Customs has already begun its first wave of investigations: Wheatland Tube, a US steel pipe producer, on September 14, 2016 announced it had filed with CBP an allegation of duty evasion on imports of Chinese circular welded steel pipe.

CBP has published a timeline for conducting its investigations and a process diagram (EAPA Investigation Timeline) and this newly filed allegation will be a test case to see how CBP will conduct its new duty evasion investigations. Hopefully, CBP will soon address many of the questions raised by the new regulations. How will parties be allowed to participate? What information from the investigation will be made public? How will CBP define “reasonable suspicion” of duty evasion?

This steel pipe investigation is likely to be the first of many CBP duty evasion investigations that are to come, many (probably most) of which will target Chinese products subject to AD/CVD duties. For how to figure out the risk quotient for the products you import from China, check out China Imports: Know Your Risks.

The new antidumping and countervailing duty regulations will unquestionably require an increased number of importers and foreign manufacturers to formally respond to CBP’s questions in response to allegations. Given the strong political pressure by domestic U.S. industries calling for tougher enforcement of US trade laws (not to mention the rising opposition to free trade among the American populace), Chinese producers and exporters and US importers should be prepared for increased CBP activity. CBP is likely looking to punish someone hard to set an example of their improved enforcement.

Getting Your China Products Through U.S. Customs: The101

By Emily Lawson, Harris Moure International Trade Group

If you are importing products from China you need to do your homework to make sure your incoming shipments into the United States comply with U.S. Customs laws and regulations. Compliance with U.S. Customs laws and regulationsiscriticalinavoidingyourshipmentsbeingdetainedorseized,and/or penalties assessed.Commonissues importers of productsfromChina typicallyface include thefollowing:

•Failingtomarktheproductwiththecountryoforiginofmanufacture. Generally goods of foreign origin for import into the U.S. or immediate containers of the goods must be marked legibly and in a conspicuous locationwiththecountry oforigininEnglish.Failuretodosoaccurately can resultincivilandevenpossibly criminalpenalties.

•Failing to provide complete commercial invoices. Customs regulations providethatspecificdatamustbeincludedonthecommercialinvoicefor U.S.Customspurposes,includingadetaileddescriptionofthemerchandise, andcorrectvalueinformation.Omissionofthisinformationmay resultin improper declaration to U.S. Customs at the time of import and expose you to penalties.

•FailingtomeetotherU.S.Governmentagencyrequirements.Goods imported for sale in the U.S. must satisfy the same legal requirements as those goods manufactured in the United States. U.S. Customs enforces the laws of other agencies in the U.S., including, the Food and Drug Administration,theConsumerProductSafety Commission(CPSC),andthe Environmental Protection Agency,inadditionto others. Therefore, iftoys, forexample,areexportedtotheU.S.,detailedCPSCrequirements,including for testing, must be met prior toexport.

•Distribution of many trademarked and copyrighted items. Items which are trademarkedandcopyrightedarerestrictedby contractualagreementsthat giveexclusiverightstospecificcompaniestodistributetheproductinthe U.S.Importsofimproperly trademarkedorcopyrighteditemscanbeseized attheU.S.borderandcansubjectyouastheimportertopenalties.

Takingthetimetoidentify therequiredU.S.Customslawsandregulationsfor the products to be shipped to the U.S. from China will help you maintain seamlessdelivery of yourmerchandisetoU.S.customersandavoidciviland criminal penalty exposure.

On October 5, 2916, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the attached decision in United States ex rel Customs Fraud Investigations, LLC. v. Vitaulic Company, us-vs-vitaulic, reversed the Federal District Court and held that a failure to label imported goods with the proper country of origin is actionable under the False Claim Act (“FCA”). Vitaulic had imported millions of pounds of steel pipe with the wrong country of origin.

In holding that this is an actionable claim under the FCA, the Court stated:

These actions, according to CFI, give rise to the present qui tam action under the so-called “reverse false claims” provision in the False Claims Act (FCA). Typically, a claim under the FCA alleges that a person or company submitted a bill to the government for work that was not performed or was performed improperly, resulting in an undeserved payment flowing to that person or company. The FCA was enacted as a reaction to rampant fraud and price gouging by merchants supplying the Union army during the Civil War. In this case, by contrast, the allegation is not that Victaulic is obtaining monies from the government to which it is not entitled, but rather that it is retaining money it should have paid the government in the form of marking duties. Wrongful retention cases such as these are known as “reverse false claims” actions.

The Court went on to state:

Of particular importance here, the Senate Report discussed “customs duties for mismarking country of origin,” and how such duties would be covered by the amended reverse false claims Provision. . . .

The plain text of the FCA’s reverse claims provision is clear: any individual who “knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government” may be subject to liability. As alleged by CFI in the amended complaint, Victaulic declined to notify the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of its pipe fittings’ non-conforming status. This failure to notify resulted in the pipe fittings being released into the stream of commerce in the United States and, consequently, marking duties being owed and not paid.

From a policy perspective, the possibility of reverse false claims liability in such circumstances makes sense in the context of the larger import/export regulatory scheme created by Congress. Because of the government’s inability to inspect every shipment entering the United States, an importer may have an incentive to decline to mention that its goods are mismarked on the assumption that the mismarking will not be discovered. In doing so, an importer avoids its obligation under 19 U.S.C. § 1484 to provide the government with such information as is necessary to enable the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to determine whether the merchandise may be released from government custody or whether it must be properly marked, re-exported or destroyed.

HONEY AND FURNITURE

FURNITURE

On September 30, 2016, Ecologic Industries LLC and OMNI SCM LLC controlled by a Daniel Scott Goldman agreed to pay $1.525 million to settle a civil False Claims Act suit alleging it conspired to make false statements to avoid paying duties on wooden furniture imported from China to avoid the antidumping duties on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China. The companies sell furniture for student housing.

The case was filed by a whistleblower Matthew Bissanti, who is the former president and director of OMNI. The Justice Department reported that Bissanti will receive $228,750 as his share of the settlement.

HONEY

On Aug 12, 2016, in the attached notice, to-bee-or-not-to-bee_-cbp-and-partners-seized-132-drums-of-hone, Customs and Border Protection announced seizure of 42 tons of illegally imported Chinese honey. The honey was contained in 132 fifty-five gallon drums that were falsely declared as originating from Taiwan to evade antidumping duties applicable to Chinese honey. The evaded antidumping duties on this shipment of Chinese honey would be nearly $180,299.

ANTITRUST LAW

VITAMIN C ANTITRUST CASE—THE REAL ANTIDUMPING BACK STORY

On September 20, 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its attached decision in the Vitamin C Antitrust case against the Chinese companies, In Re: Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, vitamin-c-13-4791_opn-2d-cir-sept-20-2016. In its decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the Federal District Court’s decision that the Chinese Vitamin C companies had fixed prices in violation of the US antitrust because Chinese government action, in effect, insulated the Chinese companies from US antitrust liability.

The Court of Appeals made the correct decision because as indicated below, I have personal knowledge as to the reason the Chinese government set the Vitamin C export price scheme in place to raise Chinese export prices—to deter US and other Antidumping cases.

As the Court of Appeals stated in its opinion:

the Chinese Government filed a formal statement in the district court asserting that Chinese law required Defendants to set prices and reduce quantities of vitamin C sold abroad, and because Defendants could not simultaneously comply with Chinese law and U.S. antitrust law . . .

The Court of Appeals then reversed the District Court “on international comity grounds” and ordered the District Court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

In effect, the Second Circuit held that based on comity grounds, that is, respect for Chinese law as evidenced by a formal statement and submission of the Chinese government that the Chinese government lawfully set up a scheme to raise Vitamin C prices, the Federal District Court should have dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court should have deferred to the Chinese government and exempted the Chinese companies from the application of the US antitrust law based on the state action defense. It should be noted that the Federal Government and State Governments through state action can insulate US domestic companies from the application of the US antitrust law.

The Court of Appeals specifically determined in the decision that:

The official statements of the Ministry should be credited and accorded deference. . . .The 2002 Notice, inter alia, demonstrates that from 2002 to 2005, the relevant time period alleged in the complaint, Chinese law required Defendants to participate in the PVC regime in order to export vitamin C. This regulatory regime allowed vitamin C manufacturers the export only vitamin C subject to contracts that complied with the “industry‐wide negotiated” price.

Although the 2002 Notice does not specify how the “industry‐wide negotiated” price was set, we defer to the Ministry’s reasonable interpretation that the term means what it suggests—that members of the regulated industry were required to negotiate and agree upon a price. . . ..

In this context, we find it reasonable to view the entire PVC regime as a decentralized means by which the Ministry, through the Chamber, regulated the export of vitamin C by deferring to the manufacturers and adopting their agreed upon price as the minimum export price. In short, by directing vitamin C manufacturers to coordinate export prices and quantities and adopting those standards into the regulatory regime, the Chinese Government required Defendants to violate the Sherman Act. . . .

Because we hold that Defendants could not comply with both U.S. antitrust laws and Chinese law regulating the foreign export of vitamin C, a true conflict exists between the applicable laws of China and those of the United States.

The Court of Appeals went on to state:

Moreover, there is no evidence that Defendants acted with the express purpose or intent to affect U.S. commerce or harm U.S. businesses in particular. Rather, according to the Ministry, the regulations at issue governing Defendants’ conduct were intended to assist China in its transition from a state‐run command economy to a market‐driven economy, and the resulting price‐fixing was intended to ensure China remained a competitive participant in the global vitamin C market and to prevent harm to China’s trade relations. While it was reasonably foreseeable that China’s vitamin C policies would generally have a negative effect on Plaintiffs as participants in the international market for vitamin C, as noted above, there is no evidence that Defendants’ antitrust activities were specifically directed at Plaintiffs or other U.S. companies.

The purpose of the Chinese export scheme was not to damage US customers or businesses. In fact, just the opposite was true. The Chinese government wanted to keep exports flowing.

What was the concern of the Chinese government? US and other antidumping cases, which could wipe Chinese exports out of the US market for decades. This was the true number one anticompetitive threat that the Chinese government and companies were facing. Was this a realistic threat? Sure was.

The period that the export price scheme was set in place was 2002-2005. On July 11, 2002, after losing an antidumping case in the mid-90s against Saccharin from China despite very high antidumping rates because of a no injury determination by the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”), PMC, the sole US producer of saccharin, filed a second antidumping case against saccharin from China. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce in charge of the Saccharin case was the Chamber of Commerce for Medicines, the same Chamber in charge of the Vitamin C case.

On July 2, 2003, the Commerce Department issued an antidumping order against all imports of saccharin from China with rates ranging from an individual dumping rate of 249.39% to 329.29% for all other Chinese companies, effectively blocking all Chinese saccharin from China. The Antidumping Order was in effect for 10 years.

Although one company that I represented was after three and a half years able to reduce its dumping rate down to 0%, all other Chinese saccharin was blocked out of the US market for 10 years. Market prices for saccharin in the US soared from a low $1.50 per pound in the investigative period to a price well over $10 a pound.

And US plaintiff companies in the Vitamin C case were complaining about the price rise in Vitamin C exports to the US??!! I am sure the increase was not 10 times.

Since I represented the Chinese saccharin industry in the Saccharin antidumping case, the Chamber of Commerce for Medicine and I were very aware of the devastating effect a US or other antidumping case could have on Chinese companies and exports. After the antidumping order was issued, in the Summer of 2003 the Chamber called me to a meeting with the Chinese Vitamin C producers and the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”} to discuss how to deter US and other antidumping cases. The Chamber and MOFCOM were very worried that intense Chinese price competition would lead to a wave of antidumping cases against the Vitamin C companies.

The Vitamin C companies, the Chamber and MOFCOM asked what can we do if there is a threat of an antidumping case. Since Commerce and all other countries treat China as a nonmarket economy country and refuse to use actual prices and costs in China to determine antidumping cases, the general practice of dump proofing where antidumping consultants use computer programs to eliminate the unfair act, dumping, is not an option for Chinese companies.

The only remedy I could think of was that the Chinese government impose an export price floor. That approach worked in the 90s with another Chamber of Commerce when there was a threat of a US antidumping case against Silicon Carbide from China. The US Silicon Carbide producer in the one company US industry never filed their threatened antidumping case against China because of the export price floor the Chamber with MOFCOM’s consent put in place.

After suggesting that the Chamber set up an export price floor with MOFCOM’s involvement, I went on to state that MOFCOM would have to issue a law, regulation or action to show that the Government mandated the establishment of the system to insulate the Chinese companies from attack under the US antitrust laws.

The Chamber did set up the export price system for Vitamin C exports to stop US and other antidumping cases from being filed against the Chinese companies. No Vitamin C antidumping cases were filed because the export price system was put in place.

As indicated by the Second Circuit, MOFOM did take government action to set up the export price scheme, which, in turn, insulated the Chinese companies from US antitrust liability.

The lesson of the story is that although the purpose of US antitrust law is to protect consumers and competition in the US market, the real threat to US consumers and market competition is the US antidumping law.

CRIMINAL IP/TRADE SECRET CASE

On October 5, 2016, the Justice Department in the attached notice, chinese-national-sentenced-to-prison-for-conspiracy-to-steal-tr, announced the sentencing of Mo Hailong, a/k/a Robert Mo, a Chinese national to three years in Federal prison for a conspiracy to steal trade secrets. Mr. Mo Hailong was the Director of International Business of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Company, commonly referred to as DBN. DBN is a Chinese conglomerate with a corn seed subsidiary company, Kings Nower Seed.

According to the plea agreement, Mo Hailong admitted to participating in a long-term conspiracy to steal trade secrets from DuPont Pioneer and Monsanto. Mo Hailong participated in the theft of inbred corn seeds from fields in Iowa and elsewhere for the purpose of transporting the seeds to DBN in China. The stolen inbred, or parent, seeds were the valuable trade secrets of DuPont Pioneer and Monsanto.

U.S. Attorney Kevin E. VanderSchel stated:

“Mo Hailong stole valuable proprietary information in the form of seed corn from DuPont Pioneer and Monsanto in an effort to transport such trade secrets to China. Theft of trade secrets is a serious federal crime, as it harms victim companies that have invested millions of dollars and years of work toward the development of propriety technology. The theft of agricultural trade secrets, and other intellectual property, poses a grave threat to our national economic security. The Justice Department and federal law enforcement partners are committed to prosecuting those who in engage in conduct such as Mo Hailong.”

SECTION 337 AND IP CASES

NEW 337 CASES

On October 6, 2016, Nite Ize, Inc. filed a major 337 case against Device Holders, many of which come from China. The relevant parts of the ITC notice along with the names of the Chinese respondent companies are below.

STOP IP INFRINGING PRODUCTS FROM CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES USING CUSTOMS AND SECTION 337 CASES

With Amazon and Ebay having increased their efforts at bringing in Chinese sellers and with more and more Chinese manufacturers branching out and making their own products, the number of companies contacting our China lawyers here at Harris Moure about problems with counterfeit products and knockoffs has soared. If the problem involves infringing products being imported into the United States, powerful remedies are available to companies with US IP rights if the infringing imports are products coming across the US border.

If the IP holder has a registered trademark or copyright, the individual or company holding the trademark or copyright can go directly to Customs and record the trademark under 19 CFR 133.1 or the copyright under 19 CFR 133.31. See https://iprr.cbp.gov/.

Many years ago a US floor tile company was having massive problems with imports infringing its copyrights on its tile designs. Initially, we looked at a Section 337 case as described below, but the more we dug down into the facts, we discovered that the company simply failed to register its copyrights with US Customs.

Once the trademarks and copyrights are registered, however, it is very important for the company to continually police the situation and educate the various Customs ports in the United States about the registered trademarks and copyrights and the infringing imports coming into the US. Such a campaign can help educate the Customs officers as to what they should be looking out for when it comes to identifying which imports infringe the trademarks and copyrights in question. The US recording industry many years ago had a very successful campaign at US Customs to stop infringing imports.

For those companies with problems from Chinese infringing imports, another alternative is to go to Chinese Customs to stop the export of infringing products from China. The owner of Beanie Babies did this very successfully having Chinese Customs stop the export of the infringing Beanie Babies out of China.

One of the most powerful remedies is a Section 337 case, which can block infringing products, regardless of their origin, from entering the U.S. A Section 337 action (the name comes from the implementing statute, 19 U.S.C. 1337) is available against imported goods that infringe a copyright, trademark, patent, or trade secret. But because other actions are usually readily available to owners of registered trademarks and copyrights, Section 337 actions are particularly effective for owners of patents, unregistered trademarks, and trade secrets. Although generally limited to IP rights, in the ongoing Section 337 steel case, US Steel has been attempting to expand the definition of unfair acts to include hacking into computer systems and antitrust violations.

The starting point is a section 337 investigation at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”). If the ITC finds certain imports infringe a specific intellectual property right, it can issue an exclusion order and U.S. Customs will then keep out allthe infringing imports at the border.

Section 337 is a hybrid IP and trade statute, which requires a showing of injury to a US industry. The injury requirement is very low and can nearly always be met–a few lost sales will suffice to show injury. The US industry requirement can be a sticking point. The US industry is usually the one company that holds the intellectual property right in question. If the IP right is a registered trademark, copyright or patent, the US industry requirement has been expanded to not only include significant US investment in plant and equipment, labor or capital to substantial investment in the exploitation of the IP right, including engineering, research and development or licensing. Recently, however, the ITC has raised the US industry requirement to make it harder for patent “trolls” or Non Practicing Entities to bring 337 cases.

Section 337 cases, however, are directed at truly unfair acts. Patents and Copyrights are protected by the US Constitution so in contrast to antidumping and countervailing duty cases, respondents in these cases get more due process protection. The Administrative Procedures Act is applied to Section 337 cases with a full trial before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), extended full discovery, a long trial type hearing, but on a very expedited time frame.

Section 337 actions, in fact, are the bullet train of IP litigation, fast, intense litigation in front of an ALJ. The typical section 337 case takes only 12-15 months. Once a 337 petition is filed, the ITC has 30 days to determine whether or not to institute the case. After institution, the ITC will serve the complaint and notice of investigation on the respondents. Foreign respondents have 30 days to respond to the complaint; US respondents have only 20 days. If the importers or foreign respondents do not respond to the complaint, the ITC can find the companies in default and issue an exclusion order.

The ITC’s jurisdiction in 337 cases is “in rem,” which means it is over the product being imported into the US. This makes sense: the ITC has no power over the foreign companies themselves, but it does have power over the imports. What this means in everyday terms is that unlike most regular litigation, a Section 337 case can be effectively won against a Chinese company that 1) is impossible to serve, 2) fails to show up at the hearing, and 3) is impossible to collect any money from.

The remedy in section 337 cases is an exclusion order excluding the respondent’s infringing products from entering the United States. In special situations, however, where it is very easy to manufacture a product, the ITC can issue a general exclusion order against the World. In the Rubik’s Cube puzzle case, which was my case at the ITC, Ideal (the claimant) named over 400 Taiwan companies as respondents infringing its common law trademark. The ITC issued a General Exclusion Order in 1983 and it is still in force today, blocking Rubik’s Cube not made by Ideal from entering the United States. In addition to exclusion orders, the ITC can issue cease and desist orders prohibiting US importers from selling products in inventory that infringe the IP rights in question

Section 337 cases can also be privately settled, but the settlement agreement is subject to ITC review. We frequently work with our respondent clients to settle 337 cases early to minimize their legal fees. In the early 1990s, RCA filed a section 337 case against TVs from China. The Chinese companies all quickly settled the case by signing a license agreement with RCA.

Respondents caught in section 337 cases often can modify their designs to avoid the IP right in question. John Deere brought a famous 337 case aimed at Chinese companies that painted their tractors green and yellow infringing John Deere’s trademark. Most of the Chinese respondents settled the case and painted their tractors different colors, such as blue and red.

Bottom Line: Section 337 cases are intense litigation before the ITC, and should be considered by U.S. companies as a tool for fighting against infringing products entering the United States. On the flip side, US importers and foreign respondents named in these cases should take them very seriously and respond quickly because exclusion orders can stay in place for years.

If you have any questions about these cases or about US trade policy, TPP, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, trade adjustment assistance, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law in general, please feel free to contact me.

Have not been able to send out a new newsletter in April because we are in the process of moving to a new law firm. As of May 1, 2016, I will no longer be at the Dorsey law firm. Dorsey will continue to represent clients in international trade and customs matters but will no longer be handling antidumping, countervailing duty, section 201, escape clause and other similar trade regulation cases.

My new law firm is Harris Moure, here in Seattle and my new e-mail address is bill@harrismoure.com. The US China Trade War blog and newsletter will be coming with me, but coming from my new firm.

Although will miss my Dorsey friends, I am looking forward to Harris Moure, which can be found at http://www.harrismoure.com/. With a Beijing office and lawyers that can speak fluent Chinese, the Harris firm is well known for helping US and other foreign companies move to China to set up manufacturing operations. Dan Harris has a very famous blog, http://www.chinalawblog.com/, which is followed by many companies that are interested in doing business in and with China.

In addition, set forth are two major developments involving trade litigation against Chinese companies.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at this Dorsey e-mail address until April 30th and then after that at bill@harrismoure.com.

Bill Perry

TRADE UPDATES

NEW SECTION 337 UNFAIR TRADE CASE AGAINST ALL CHINESE CARBON ALLOY STEEL COMPANIES AND ALL STEEL PRODUCTS FROM CHINA

On April 26, 2016, US Steel Corp filed a major 337 unfair trade case against all the Chinese steel companies seeking an exclusion order to bar all imports of carbon and alloy steel from China. See the ITC notice below. U.S. Steel Corp. is accusing Chinese steel producers and their distributors of conspiring to fix prices, stealing trade secrets and false labeling to avoid trade duties. It is asking the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to issue an exclusion order baring all the Chinese steel from the US market and also cease and desist orders prohibiting importers from selling any imported Chinese steel that has already been imported into the United States.

The petition alleges that the Chinese companies:

work together to injure U.S. competitors, including U.S. Steel. Through their cartel, the China Iron and Steel Association (“CISA”), Proposed Manufacturer Respondents conspire to control raw material input prices, share cost and capacity information, and regulate production and prices for steel products exported to the United States. Proposed Manufacturer Respondents also share production schedules and time the release of products across multiple companies. This enables them to coordinate exports of new products to flood the U.S. market and destroy competitors.

4. Some of the Proposed Manufacturer Respondents have used valuable trade secrets stolen from U.S. Steel to produce advanced high-strength steel that no Chinese manufacturer had been able to commercialize before the theft. In January 2011, the Chinese government hacked U.S. Steel’s research computers and equipment, stealing proprietary methods for manufacturing these products. Soon thereafter, the Baosteel Respondents began producing and exporting the very highest grades of advanced high-strength steel, even though they had previously been unable to do so. Chinese imports created with U.S. Steel’s stolen trade secrets compete against and undercut U.S. Steel’s own products.

5. Proposed Respondents create documentation showing false countries of origin and false manufacturers for Chinese steel products. They also transship them through third countries to disguise their country of origin, circumvent anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders, and deceive steel consumers about the origin of Chinese steel.

Having worked at the ITC on 337 cases and later in private practice, section 337 is generally aimed at imports that infringe intellectual property rights, such as patents, trademarks or copyrights. Moreover, one provision of section 337(b)(3) provides that when any aspect of a section 337 case relates to questions of dumping or subsidization, the Commission is to terminate the case immediately and refer the question to Commerce.

Also in the past when section 337 was used to bring antitrust cases, there was intense push back by the Justice Department. Customs and Border Protection also may not be happy with the use of section 337 to enforce US Custom law.

But section 337 cases are not antidumping and countervailing duty cases. There are no mandatory companies and lesser targets. All the Chinese steel companies are targets, and this will be intense litigation with very tight deadlines. If the individual Chinese steel companies do not respond to the complaint, their steel exports could be excluded in 70 days to six months. Section 337 cases are hard- nosed litigation on a very fast track.

If you are interested in a copy of the complaint, please feel free to contact me.

On April 18, 2016 the United Steelworkers Union filed a section 201 safeguard case against imports of aluminum from all countries at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”). Although the target appeared to be China because its overcapacity has affected the World aluminum market, in fact, not so much. China has an export tax in place to prevent exports of primary aluminum. The real targets were Canada and Russia. Canada exports about $4 billion in aluminum to the US, and Russia exports about $1 billion.

But after intense pressure from the US Aluminum producers, on April 22th the Union withdrew the petition. Apparently, the US Aluminum producers have production facilities in Canada and also part of the Union was in Canada and not happy with the case.

Moreover, at the request of Congress, the ITC is conducting a fact-finding investigation on the US aluminum industry. The report is due out June 24, 2017. The Union may have decided to wait until the ITC issues the fact-finding report in June and then it will refile the 201 case.

But there are reports that as a result of the case the Canadian and US governments are discussing the aluminum trade problem, which may result in a settlement down the road.

If you have any questions about these cases or about the US trade policy, trade adjustment assistance, customs, 337, IP/patent, products liability, US/China antitrust or securities law in general, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

Dear Friends,

On March 21, 2016 and March 17, 2016, after this post was sent out, I was interviewed on Donald Trump and the US China Trade War by the World Finance, a bi-monthly print and web outlet on the financial industry.

For more information on the specific points made in the two videos on the US China Trade War and Donald Trump, please see the lead article below on the Trump Impact on International Trade policy.

March 11 Blog Post

After returning from a two week trip to China to work on the Solar Cells case, this March blog post will cover trade policy, including Trump’s impact on Trade Policy, trade, Customs, False Claims Act, the recent ZTE Export Control debacle, 337, patents/IP, criminal IP cases, products liability, antitrust and securities. There are significant developments in the US antitrust area.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

THE TRUMP IMPACT ON US TRADE POLICY

As stated in numerous past blog posts, one of the major reasons the Trans Pacific Partnership is running into problems in Congress along with a number of other trade issues, such as market economy for China, is the impact of the Presidential elections, especially the rise of Donald Trump. After Super Tuesday on March 1, 2016 and the Trump victories in seven different states many Republican pundits believe the game is over and Trump has won the Republican primary and will be the party’s nominee.

Thus Ed Rollins, who worked in the Reagan Administration and is a highly respected expert on the Republican party, published an article on March 2, 2016 on the Fox News website stating, “Trump is now unstoppable. It’s game over for Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson.” Rollins goes on to state:

Game over! This was a rout, America. Winning seven states and the vast majority of delegates is a landslide. Donald Trump and the millions of his supporters have changed American politics and the Republican Party for the foreseeable future. . . .

Trump, who is an unconventional candidate, to say the least, has tapped into the anger and frustration across America and has mobilized voters to turn out in record numbers.

Love him or hate him, be inspired by him or be appalled by him, Trump has totally dominated a political cycle like no other politician I’ve seen in decades.

I admit I was a total skeptic, like many others. At first, I didn’t think he would run. Then I thought there was no way he could beat the all-star cast of elected officials running against him.

Then I underestimated his lack of substance and trite answers in the debates. Then I underestimated his lack of a real campaign.

Then I was convinced the political establishment was going to spend millions and take him out. And like the Energizer bunny he just keeps going and winning!

Trump is getting stronger by the day and his supporters are locked in and not going away. And no one has mastered the media like this since Teddy Roosevelt and his rough riders.

What’s ahead is a Republican Party that either becomes part of his movement or splinters into many pieces. No matter what Trump does or says, the nomination is his for the taking.

At most, there is only a 30% chance that some other Republican candidate can beat Trump, but with a 70% chance that Trump will be the Republican nominee, the question is can Trump beat Hilary Clinton? Many facts indicate that Trump could win and become the next President.

On February 29, 2016, the Boston Herald reported that my childhood state, Massachusetts, which is very liberal and very Democratic, is seeing a surge in Democratic voters switching parties to vote Republican for Trump. As the Boston Herald reported on February 29, 2016, “Amid Trump surge, nearly 20,000 Mass. voters quit Democratic party”. The Article goes on to state:

The primary reason? [Secretary of State Galvin said his “guess” is simple: “The Trump phenomenon” . . . . Galvin said the state could see as many as 700,000 voting in tomorrow’s Republican primary, a significant number given just 468,000 people are actually registered Republicans. In Massachusetts. unenrolled — otherwise known as independent — voters can cast a ballot in the primary of any party.

For full article see http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_tru… 3/1/2016

On February 29, 2016, Buck Fox in Investors Business Daily, one of the more well- known financial newspapers in the US, predicted that Trump would win the Presidency:

Let’s take a rare journalistic moment to answer definitively: Will Donald Trump win the presidency? Yes.

Good. Got that out of the way. No dialing a focus group. Tell it straight. … Answers. Trump rattles them off fearlessly. He doesn’t consult pollsters. He goes with his gut.

Which is one reason he’s wildly popular — dominating the Drudge debate poll with 57% — and on the way to delivering the inaugural address on Jan. 20, 2017, as the 45th president.

As Ann Coulter says, President Trump will be halfway through that speech as the Republican Party keeps debating his viability.

For full article, see http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/trump-towers-over-the-presidential-field/[2/29/2016 12:29:13 PM]

On March 1, 2016, Politico published an article “The media’s Trump reckoning: ‘Everyone was wrong’ From the New Yorker to FiveThirtyEight, outlets across the spectrum failed to grasp the Trump phenomenon.”

In a March 3, 2016 article, John Brinkley of Forbes asks “Why Is Trade Such A Big Deal In The Election Campaign?”, stating in part:

Did you ever think you’d see a day when international trade was a central issue in a U.S. presidential election?

That’s where we are in 2016. For one reason or another, all the presidential candidates have felt the need to stake out positions on trade.

Well, almost never. While running for president in 1992, Ross Perot warned that NAFTA would cause “a giant sucking sound” from Mexico, but he wasn’t able to elevate NAFTA to a prominent position in that year’s election debates.

This year the Republican front-runner Donald Trump, who says he knows a lot about trade, but has proven that he doesn’t, says he’ll repeal NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership if it takes effect before he becomes president.

He also says he wants to slap a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports. It’s been pointed out that this would get us into a trade war. The Trump camp’s fatuous response is that we’re already in a trade war with China. That’s like saying your house is in fire, so let’s spray gasoline on it.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, who had a realistic shot at the Democratic nomination until Super Tuesday, has ranted and raved about free trade agreements throughout his campaign. He says they have cost millions of Americans their jobs, although there is no empirical evidence of that.

In her inimical please-all-the-people-all-the-time style, Democratic frontrunner Hilary Clinton says she doesn’t like the Trans-Pacific Partnership in its present form, but might change her mind if certain changes are made. She obviously thinks trade is important enough as a political issue that she has to bob and weave rather than take an unambiguous yes-or-no position. . . .

Why is trade such a volatile issue this year?

An obvious reason is that the Obama administration has negotiated and signed the most mammoth trade agreement in the history of the universe.

And a third we can call The Trump Factor: the other GOP candidates are so scared of Trump that they feel they have to respond to everything he says, just to show that they’re not like him (which hardly seems necessary). . . .

Keeler said the prominence of trade in the 2016 presidential campaign “is surprising in the same way that everything about Donald Trump is surprising.”

Why is trade policy so important in this election? It is not because Trump says it is so. Instead, it is the reason Trump is doing so well in the Republican primary—his appeal to a large constituency that is being hammered by illegal immigration, hurt by trade and afraid of losing their jobs. Several pundits have tried to explain what this election is really about and the reason for Trump’s rise:

Hundreds of workers in Indiana, who just saw their jobs heading to Mexico;

Disney employees being fired and forced to retrain foreign replacements;

and finally the systematic invasion of the country by illegal immigrants, who take American jobs away.

Middle class and lower middle class people are afraid of losing their jobs and their livelihood and are flocking to Trump.

In two word, this is economic nationalism.

One central core of Donald Trump’s strategy is the argument that the United States has been soft on trade and “does not win any more.” Trump specifically points to China as one of the biggest winners saying that China, Mexico and Japan all beat the US in trade.

Moreover, the Core Constituency of Trump, his followers, are blue collar workers, many without a college education, so-called Reagan Democrats, that work in companies, factories, service industries and often are in labor unions. These workers are in regular 9 to 5 jobs on a set salary, in the lower middle and middle class, who are not privileged and not protected, feel their livelihoods threatened by illegal immigration and trade deals that give other countries access to US markets. These blue collar workers are white, black, and Hispanic, such as in the Nevada primary where many Hispanics voted for Trump. These workers would normally vote Democratic, but they firmly believe that no party be it Democratic or Republican truly represents their interests and are willing to protect their jobs and way of life. Along comes Donald Trump stating that he will stop illegal immigrants at the border, do away with trade agreements and stop imports from China saving their jobs. He will make America great again. For many, many workers this argument makes them solid Trump supporters.

In a March 2 article entitled Eight Reasons we need to start preparing for President Trump, Geoff Earle writing for the NY Post states

Reason 5:

Trump’s main demographic strength — working-class men and white voters — matches up well against one of Hillary Clinton’s chief weaknesses. He could go after Clinton in must-win Ohio, where “Trump’s rhetoric appeals to those blue-collar Democrats,” said GOP strategist Brian Walsh.

For full article, see http://nypost.com/2016/03/02/8-reasons-we-need-to-start-preparing-for-president-trump.

In listening to Donald Trump’s victory speech on Super Tuesday, he stated that he wants to be a unifier and that he will reduce corporate taxes and make it easier for US companies to repatriate profits and set up manufacturing in the US. No one has problems with Trump’s idea of using carrots to bring back US manufacturing. The problem is with Trump’s idea of using trade sticks to force manufacturing back to the US by setting up high protectionist walls.

On February 29, 2016, The Wall Street Journal in an editorial entitled, “Making Depressions Great Again — The U.S. may renounce its trade leadership at a dangerous economic moment,” expressed its real concern that by using the Trade/Tariff sticks Trump could take the United States back to the 1930s and the Smoot Hawley Tariff that created the Great Depression:

Reviving trade is crucial to driving faster growth, yet the paradox of trade politics is that it is least popular when economic anxiety is high and thus trade is most crucial.

And so it is now: Four of the remaining U.S. candidates claim to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Congress now lacks the votes to pass it.

The loudest voice of America’s new antitrade populism is Mr. Trump, who has endorsed 45% tariffs on Chinese and Japanese imports and promises to punish U.S. companies that make cookies and cars in Mexico. When Mr. Trump visited the Journal in November, he couldn’t name a single trade deal he supported, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

He says he’s a free trader but that recent Administrations have been staffed by pathetic losers, so as President he would make deals more favorable to the U.S., and foreigners would bow before his threats. “I don’t mind trade wars,” he said at Thursday’s debate.

He should be careful what he wishes. Trade brinksmanship is always hazardous, especially when the world economy is so weak. A trade crash could trigger a new recession that would take years to repair, and these conflicts are unpredictable and can escalate into far greater damage.

The tragic historic precedent is the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, signed reluctantly by Herbert Hoover. In that era the GOP was the party of tariffs, which economist Joseph Schumpeter called the Republican “household remedy.” Smoot-Hawley was intended to protect U.S. jobs and farmers from foreign competition, but it enraged U.S. trading partners like Canada, Britain and France.

As economic historian Charles Kindleberger shows in his classic, “The World in Depression, 1929-1939,” the U.S. tariff cascaded into a global war of beggar-thy-neighbor tariff reprisals and currency devaluation to gain a trading advantage. Each country’s search for a protectionist advantage became a disaster for all as trade volumes shrank and deepened the Great Depression.

Kindleberger blames the Depression in large part on a failure of leadership, especially by a U.S. that was unwilling to defend open markets in a period of distress. “For the world economy to be stabilized, there has to be a stabilizer—one stabilizer,” he wrote. Britain had played that role for two centuries but was then too weak. The U.S. failed to pick up the mantle. . . .

Once the President recovered his trade bearings, Mitt Romney promised in 2012 to sanction China for currency manipulation and even ran TV ads claiming that “for the first time, China is beating us.”

Mr. Trump is now escalating this line into the centerpiece of his economic agenda—protectionism you can believe in. And what markets and the public should understand is that as President he would have enormous unilateral power to follow through. Congress has handed the President more power over the years to impose punitive tariffs, in large part so Members can blame someone else when antitrade populism runs hot. . . .

In an exchange with Bill O’Reilly on Feb. 10, Mr. Trump said that’s exactly what he plans to do. The Fox News host suggested a trade war is “going to be bloody.” Mr. Trump replied that Americans needn’t worry because the Chinese “will crash their economy,” adding that “they will have a depression, the likes of which you have never seen” in a trade war. He might be right about China, but the U.S. wouldn’t be spared.

The Trump candidacy thus introduces a new and dangerous element of economic risk to a world still struggling to emerge from the 2008 panic and the failed progressive policy response. A trade war would compound the potential to make depressions great again.

President Ronald Reagan, who lived through the Great Depression and knew about the impact of the Smoot Hawley tariff on his generation, was a solid free trader stating on June 28, 1986 in the attached speech on international trade, BETTER COPY REAGAN IT SPEECH:

But cliches and demagoguery aside, the truth is these trade restrictions badly hurt economic growth. You see, trade barriers and protectionism only put off the inevitable.

Sooner or later, economic reality intrudes, and industries protected by the Government face a new and unexpected form of competition. It may be a better product, a more efficient manufacturing technique, or a new foreign or domestic competitor.

By this time, of course, the protected industry is so listless and its competitive instincts so atrophied that it can’t stand up to the competition. And that, my friends, is when the factories shut down and the unemployment lines start. We had an excellent example of this in our own history during the Great Depression. Most of you are too young to remember this, but not long after the stock market crash of 1929, the Congress passed something called the Smoot-Hawley tariff.

Many economists believe it was one of the worst blows ever to our economy. By crippling free and fair trade with other nations, it internationalized the Depression. It also helped shut off America’s export market, eliminating many jobs here at home and driving the Depression even deeper.

Ronald Reagan was a true free trader; Donald Trump is not.

But Trump’s rhetoric along with the strong positions of Bernie Sanders, have already had an impact on US trade policy.

Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”)

On February 22, 2016, despite strong opposition from Republican lawmakers and many Democratic Senators and Congressmen, in a speech before the National Governors Association, President Obama stated that he was cautiously optimistic that Congress would pass the TPP before he leaves office. President Obama specifically stated:

“I am cautiously optimistic that we can still get it done. Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan both have been supportive of this trade deal. We’re going to … enter this agreement, present it formally with some sort of implementation documents to Congress at some point this year and my hope is that we can get votes.”

But President Obama admitted that selling the TPP is not easy with the opposition of four of the top five candidates for the presidency — Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas. He further stated:

“The presidential campaigns have created some noise within and roiled things a little bit within the Republican Party, as well as the Democratic Party around this issue. I think we should just have a good, solid, healthy debate about it. What all of you can do to help is to talk to your Congressional delegations and let them know this is really important. All of you, though, can really lift up the benefits for your states, and talk to your congressional delegations directly.”

Obama can only submit legislation to implement the TPP to Congress after the U.S. International Trade Commission releases an extensive report on the agreement’s economic impact in mid-May.

As reported in my last newsletter, on February 5, 2016, in the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton stated that she could support the TPP if the deal is changed, but also stated afterwards that she opposes the deal as currently written. Meanwhile there is intense pressure on Clinton to stay opposed to the TPP as the labor unions have increased pressure on those Democratic Congressmen and Senators that voted in favor of the Trade Promotion Authority and were put on labor’s hit list. On February 29, 2016, it was reported that labor unions were now targeting 28 moderate Democrats who supported “fast-track” trade promotion legislation.

California Rep. Scott Peters estimates his reelection campaign is likely to see a $200,000 to $300,000 drop in labor donations — about a seventh of his total contributions so far — and fewer ground volunteers knocking on doors unless he changes his trade stance. The two-term lawmaker, who won reelection by 3 percent of the vote, is likely to face ad buys, call-in campaigns and protests outside his office. As Peters further stated:

“We’ve lost some pretty important labor support as a result on the vote on TPA, and that’s painful … There’s no doubt there has been a political price.”

Labor’s attacks on the free traders could also be decisive in the reelection bids of California Rep. Ami Bera and New York Rep. Kathleen Rice. The White House has sought to counter the labor attacks by early endorsements, raised campaign funds and deployed Cabinet officials to praise members in their districts.

This makes passage of the TPP very doubtful in Congress. As Texas Rep Eddie Bernice Johnson said of the loss of the AFL-CIO backing:

“It gets your attention,” adding that trade is an “economic engine” for her Dallas district. “But I cannot neglect the stance and conditions of my district that I pledged heartily to represent.”

There’s a chance a TPP vote could get delayed until the Lame Duck session or the next administration and the next Congress, but AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has stated:

“So they want to put it after the election because they think we’ll forget. Well, we’re not going to forget, and we’re not going to let the American worker forget, and we think they’ll have a tough time explaining their vote to workers who have lost jobs”

During a meeting with labor and trade protectionists, Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer reportedly slammed a notepad down on a table at the height of the debate, telling the group he was frustrated with the constant calls and picketing outside his home and district office. Blumenauer went on to state:

“I have a community that is very trade-dependent, but we also have people who are trade skeptics. So I’m just going to let the chips fall where they may.”

On March 7, 2016, former Congressman Don Bonker wrote the following article for the Seattle Times about the developments in the Trade area:

Trump’s trade rhetoric threatens U.S. economy, global standing, Trump’s fear tactics combined with viral protectionism spreading across the country is a monkey wrench for passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Donald Trump’s political rhetoric, however absurd, is boastfully driving the debate among Republicans on issues such as immigration, but it’s his relentless jabs at U.S. trade policy that is more alarming.

Threatening to slap a 35 percent tariff on all imports from China definitely resonates with his support base, but it could undermine America’s leadership globally and also prove harmful in the Puget Sound area, given that such arbitrary tariffs are imposed on American importers, not Chinese suppliers, then passed on to distributors and ultimately result in higher consumer prices.

Trump, ever boastful of his business savvy, should also expect the Chinese to retaliate, as they predictably will, to restrict U.S. exports from Washington state and beyond.

Not surprisingly, Trump wants it both ways, asserting that free trade is terrible because we have “stupid” officials doing the negotiating, yet it could be wonderful if he calls the shots and has the final word (someone should inform him about the Constitution, which clearly states that “Congress shall regulate interstate and foreign commerce.”)

This may be how he cuts backroom business deals, but Trump’s approach would be unacceptable as leader of the world’s No. 1 economy.

Such fear tactics combined with viral protectionism spreading across the country, tapped into by Bernie Sanders and now Hillary Clinton switching her position on Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is alarming to other nations who depend on America leadership in today’s global economy.

Using Trump’s words, “to make America great again,” our president must be a strong leader in today’s global economy, which Barack Obama has attempted to do with initiatives such as TPP. The partnership would give the U.S. a stronger presence in the Pacific Rim and provide a protective shield for Asian countries threatened by China’s enormous growth and influence in the region.

The TPP is destined for burial thanks to Trump’ rhetoric and growing protectionism among Democrats in Congress. It will be to China’s advantage given their own trade negotiations with the same countries.

If Trump is elected, will it put us in a trade war with China? In the 1928 presidential election, Herbert Hoover was less pompous than Trump but nonetheless called for higher tariffs that set the stage for a Republican Congress poised to run amok on limiting imports.

Shortly after the elections, hundreds of trade associations were formed that triggered an unbridled frenzy of logrolling, jockeying for maximum protection for commodity and industry producers leading to enactment of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that hiked import fees up to 100 percent on over 20,000 imported products.

On the Senate side, another 1,200 amendments were added that proved so egregious, prompting Democrat Senator Thaedeus H. Caraway of Arkansas to declare that, “I might suggest that we have taxed everything in this bill except gall,” to which Senator Carter Glass of Virginia responded, “Yes, and a tax on that would bring considerable revenue.”

What Congress sent to the president proved so alarming it prompted 1,000 of nation’s leading economists to sign a petition urging President Hoover to veto the Smoot-Hawley Act, while The New York Times printed an ad that listed 46 states and 179 universities warning that signing the bill may prompt a fierce reaction.

Indeed within a few months, America’s leading trade partners — Canada, France, Mexico, Italy, 26 countries in all — retaliated, causing the world trade to plummet by more than half of the pre-1929 totals, one of several factors that precipitated the Great Depression.

Based on his campaign rhetoric, a Trump presidency would have plenty of gall, to be sure but it is certainly not what is needed to make America great again.

On March 9, I attended a reception here in Seattle with Congressman Dave Reichert, Chairman Subcommittee on Trade, House Ways and Means. Congressman Reichert stated that he is the first Washington State Congressman to become Chairman of the Trade Subcommittee. He also stated that he is dedicated and personally committed to passing the TPP through Congress no matter how long it takes because of its importance for the economies of Washington State and the entire United States.

On March 10, 2016, however, the Wall Street Journal had a front page headline entitled, “Free Trade Loses Political Favor, Republican backing fades as voters voice surprising skepticism; Pacific pact seen at risk”. The Article states in part:

After decades in which successive Republican and Democratic presidents have pushed to open U.S. and global markets, resentment toward free trade now appears to have the upper hand in both parties, making passage this year of a sweeping Pacific trade deal far less likely and clouding the longer-term outlook for international economic exchange.

Many Democrats have long blamed free-trade deals for big job losses and depressed wages, especially in the industrialized Midwest, which has been battered over the years by competition from lower-cost manufacturing centers in countries like Japan, Mexico and China. . . .

But one big surprise Tuesday was how loudly trade fears reverberated among Republican voters in the primary contests in Michigan and Mississippi—evidence, many observers say, of a widening undercurrent of skepticism on the right about who reaps the benefits from loosened trade restrictions.

CHINA

Despite arguments by the Federalist Society in the attached article, Everything Trump Says About Trade With China Is Wrong, that Donald Trump’s arguments against China are simply wrong, Trump’s strong position and Hilary Clinton’s desire to keep Union support has forced her to take a much tougher stand on trade with China and the TPP. On February 23rd, 2016 in the attached commentary to the Maine Press Herald, CLINTON ARTICLE CHINA, entitled “If elected president, I’ll level the playing field on global trade,” Hilary Clinton stated:

At the same time, China and other countries are using underhanded and unfair trade practices to tilt the playing field against American workers and businesses.

When they dump cheap products in our markets, subsidize state-owned enterprises, manipulate currencies and discriminate against American companies, our middle class pays the price. That has to stop.

Ninety-five percent of America’s potential customers live overseas, so closing ourselves off to trade is not a solution. . . .

As President, my goal will be to win the global competition for the good-paying manufacturing jobs of the future.

First, we have to strongly enforce trade rules to ensure American workers aren’t being cheated. Too often, the federal government has put the burden of initiating trade cases on workers and unions, and failed to take action until after the damage is done and workers have been laid off.

That’s backward: The government should be enforcing the law from the beginning, and workers should be able to focus on doing their jobs. To make sure it gets done, we should establish and empower a new chief trade prosecutor reporting directly to the president, triple the number of trade enforcement officers and build new early-warning systems so we can intervene before trade violations cost American jobs.

We should also hold other countries accountable for meeting internationally sanctioned labor standards – fighting against child and slave labor and for the basic rights of workers to organize around the world.

Second, we have to stand up to Chinese abuses. Right now, Washington is considering Beijing’s request for “market economy” status. That sounds pretty obscure. But here’s the rub – if they get market economy status, it would defang our anti-dumping laws and let cheap products flood into our markets. So we should reply with only one word: No.;

With thousands of state-owned enterprises; massive subsidies for domestic industry; systematic, state-sponsored efforts to steal business secrets; and blatant refusal to play by the rules, China is far from a market economy. If China wants to be treated like a market economy, it needs to act like one.

Third, we need to crack down on currency manipulation – which can be destructive for American workers. China, Japan and other Asian economies kept their goods artificially cheap for years by holding down the value of their currencies.;

I’ve fought against these unfair practices before, and I will do it again. Tough new surveillance, transparency and monitoring regimes are part of the answer – but only part. We need to expand our toolbox to include effective new remedies, such as duties or tariffs and other measures.

They’re not just turning their back on the workers and community that supported them for years, they’re turning their back on America. As President, I’ll also end so-called “inversions” that allow multinational businesses to avoid paying U.S. taxes by moving overseas in name only.

Fifth, we have to set a high bar for any new trade agreements, and only support them if they will create good jobs, raise wages and advance our national security. I opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership when it failed to meet those tests, and would oppose future agreements if they failed to meet that bar.;

America spent generations working with partners to develop strong and fair rules of the road for the global economy – but those rules only work if we enforce them. Tough enforcement and other smart policies to support a manufacturing renaissance are the only way we can ensure that trade helps American workers. If I’m elected President, that’s what I’ll do.

THE REASON TRADE IS AT THE CENTER OF THE DEBATE AND THE REAL TRADE ANSWER—TAA FOR COMPANIES

THE REASON

What is the reason that trade is the center of the Presidential debate? I believe at its core there are two fundamental reasons—failure to educate the general populace on the benefits of trade so that they understand how manufacturing in the US is connected in global supply chain with raw material inputs from abroad.

The second reason is the toxic domestic raw material heavy industry/Labor Union attack based on false arguments that all trade competition is caused by unfair trade and that companies can be saved by bringing trade remedy cases. This rhetoric has generated a Globalization victimhood way of thinking that all imports are unfairly traded, especially from China. This is despite the fact that 80 of the outstanding 120 antidumping orders against China are directed at raw materials, chemicals, metal and steel, which goes directly into downstream US production. Restrictions on raw material inputs hurts downstream US industries, which have no standing under US antidumping and countervailing duty laws to argue against the restrictions and have their arguments have any weight in the determination.

Years ago a United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) in the W Bush Administration spoke in Seattle and said that in the Trade area the major failure has been to educate the American public on the benefits of trade. Washington State, which is dependent on imports and exports, certainly knows the benefits of trade. The Ports in Washington State are incredibly important for the economic health of the State. Our largest trading partner is China to which Washington exports $20 billion every year. Thus the Washington Council for International Trade is pushing hard for the Trans Pacific Partnership. See http://wcit.freeenterpriseaction.com/v9xpssZ

But that is not true in many other states, especially in the Midwest and on the East Coast, which have adopted the trade victimization ideology. In addition, the Steel Industry and Labor Unions make three attacks against China—currency manipulation, cyber hacking and antidumping. When one looks deeper at these arguments, however, they fall apart.

CURRENCY MANIPULATION

Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton have been screaming about currency manipulation. But on May 22, 2015, on the Senate floor during the debate on Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”) Senator Hatch made a very strong argument against the Stabenow and Portman Currency Amendment, which would have included tough provisions and sanctions, against currency manipulation. Senator Hatch clearly stated that the reason he opposed the Amendment was because President Obama under pressure from Treasury Secretary Lew stated that if the currency amendment was included, he would veto the TPA bill.

I think I can boil this very complicated issue down to a single point: The Portman-Stabenow Amendment will kill TPA.

I’m not just saying that, Mr. President. It is, at this point, a verifiable fact.

Yesterday, I received a letter from Treasury Secretary Lew outlining the Obama Administration’s opposition to this amendment. . . . most importantly, at the end of the letter, Secretary Lew stated very plainly that he would recommend that the President veto a TPA bill that included this amendment.

That’s pretty clear, Mr. President. It doesn’t leave much room for interpretation or speculation. No TPA bill that contains the language of the Portman-Stabenow Amendment stands a chance of becoming law. . . .

We know this is the case, Mr. President. Virtually all of our major negotiating partners, most notably Japan, have already made clear that they will not agree to an enforceable provisions like the one required by the Portman-Stabenow Amendment. No country that I am aware of, including the United States, has ever shown the willingness to have their monetary policies subject to potential trade sanctions. . . .

Second, the Portman-Stabenow Amendment would put at risk the Federal Reserve’s independence in its ability to formulate and execute monetary policies designed to protect and stabilize the U.S. economy. While some in this chamber have made decrees that our domestic monetary policies do not constitute currency manipulation, we know that not all of our trading partners see it that way. . . .

If the Portman-Stabenow language is adopted into TPA and these rules become part of our trade agreements, how long do you think it will take for our trading partners to enter disputes and seek remedies against Federal Reserve quantitative easing policies? Not long, I’d imagine.

If the Portman-Stabenow objective becomes part of our trade agreements, we will undoubtedly see formal actions to impose sanctions on U.S. trade, under the guise that the Federal Reserve has manipulated our currency for trade advantage. We’ll also be hearing from other countries that Fed policy is causing instability in their financial markets and economies and, unless the Fed takes a different path, those countries could argue for relief or justify their own exchange-rate policies to gain some trade advantage for themselves.

CYBER HACKING

The trade critics also attack China for Cyber Hacking, but on September 29, 2015, in response to specific questions from Senator Manchin in the Senate Armed Services Committee, James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, testified that China cyber- attacks to obtain information on weapon systems are not cyber- crime. It is cyber espionage, which the United States itself engages in. As Dr. Clapper stated, both countries, including the United States, engage in cyber espionage and “we are pretty good at it.” Dr. Clapper went on to state that “people in glass houses” shouldn’t throw stones. See http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/15-09-29-united-states-cybersecurity-policy-and-threats at 1hour 8 minutes to 10 minutes.

In response to a specific question from Senator Ayotte, Director Clapper also specifically admitted that the attack on OPM and theft of US government employee data is state espionage and not commercial activity, which the US also engages in. See above hearing at 1 hour 18 and 19 minutes.

Thus, the United States itself does not want to clearly define Cyber Hacking as unacceptable because it is state espionage and we the United States do it too and are pretty good at it.

DUMPING

As indicated in numerous past blog posts, more dumping and countervailing duty cases, some against China based on faked numbers, does not solve the trade problem. For over 40 years the Commerce Department has refused to use actual prices and costs in China to determine dumping resulting in antidumping and countervailing duty orders blocking about $30 billion in Chinese imports. In doing so, however, China is treated worse the Iran, Russia, Syria and many other countries under the US antidumping law.

As indicated below, that issue comes to a boil on December 11, 2016 when pursuant to the China WTO Agreement, China is supposed to be treated as a market economy country. But Hilary Clinton states that if market economy treatment were given to China so they could be treated like Iran, we would “defang our antidumping laws.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Having worked at the Commerce Department, I am convinced that if China were to become a market economy, Commerce would still find very large dumping rates against China.

More importantly, the antidumping, countervailing duty and other trade laws do not work. They do not save US companies and industries. We have a poster child to prove this point—The US Steel Industry. After forty years of trade cases and protection from steel imports, where is the US steel industry today?

Many of the major steel companies, such as Bethlehem Steel, Lone Star Steel and Jones & Laughlin, have become green fields. The total employment of the US Steel industry now is less than one high tech company. A failure caused not because of the lack of antidumping and countervailing duty protection covering billions of dollars in imports, but because as President Reagan stated back in 1986, protectionism does not work. It does not save the companies, because these cases do not get at the root causes of the company’s and industry’s decline.

Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton have pointed to the closure of manufacturing plants in the US and their move to Mexico. But why did the factories close?

On March 4, 2016, the Wall Street Journal in an editorial entitled “Trump on Ford and Nabisco The real reasons the companies left the U.S. for Mexico” clearly set out the reasons some of these companies left the United State to move to Mexico—Wages demands as high as $60 an hour from the Labor Unions coupled with sky high taxes to support public workers in Illinois. As the Journal stated:

“Last summer, Deerfield, Illinois-based Mondelez, which owns Nabisco, announced that it would close nine production lines at its plant in Chicago—the largest bakery in the world—while investing in new technology at a facility in Salinas, Mexico. Mondelez made the decision after asking its unions for $46 million in concessions to match the annual savings it would achieve from shifting production to Mexico. . . .

Operating in Chicago is particularly expensive since Illinois has among the nation’s highest corporate and property taxes—which are soaring to pay for city employee pensions—and workers’ compensation premiums. Last year Illinois lost 56 manufacturing jobs per work day while employment increased in most other Midwest states including Wisconsin (18 a day), Indiana (20), Ohio (58) and Michigan (74).

As for Ford, Mr. Trump flogged the auto maker’s $2.5 billion investment in two new engine and transmission plants in Mexico. . . . One impetus behind Detroit’s Mexico expansion is the United Auto Workers new collective-bargaining agreement, which raises hourly labor and benefit costs to $60 in 2019—about $10 more than foreign auto makers with plants in the U.S.—from the current $57 for Ford and $55 for GM. The increasing wages make it less economical to produce low-margin cars.

Foreign car manufacturers including BMW, Honda, Volkswagen, Kia, Nissan and Mazda have also recently announced new investments in Mexico. Besides lower labor costs, one reason they give is Mexico’s free-trade agreements, which allow access to 60% of world markets. Mexico has 10 free-trade agreements with 45 countries including Japan and the European Union whereas the U.S. has only 14 deals with 20 countries.”

Companies have to be competitive with foreign competition, and labor unions must work with management to stay competitive with the rest of the World. The “More” statement of the famous US labor leader John L. Lewis no longer works if the labor union’s more leads to the closure of the US manufacturing company, which employs the workers in question.

THE ANSWER

Not only must US Companies be competitive, but countries, including the United States, must also be competitive and be willing to meet the competition from other countries. A major reason for the rise of Donald Trump is the failure of the US Congress to formulate a trade policy that works and promote the only US trade program that truly saves import injured manufacturing companies by helping them adjust to import competition—the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Firms/Companies program. As stated in prior blog posts, because of ideological purity among many Republican conservatives in Congress and the Senate, the TAA for Companies program has been cut to the bone to $12.5 million nationwide. This cut is despite the fact that since 1984 here in the Northwest, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (“NWTAAC”) has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program.

To understand the transformative power of TAA for Companies, see the TAA video from Mid-Atlantic TAAC at http://mataac.org/howitworks/ , which describes in detail how four import injured companies used the program to change and turn their company around and make it profitable. One of the companies was using steel as an input, and was getting smashed by Chinese imports. After getting into the program, not only did the company become prosperous and profitable, it is now exporting products to China.

This cut back to $12. 5 million nationwide from $50 million makes it impossible for the TAA for Companies program to work with medium or larger US companies, which have been injured by imports. TAA for Companies is hamstrung by neglect with a maximum technical assistance per firm level that has not changed in at least 30 years.

In case you don’t know about TAAF, this is a program that offers a one-time, highly targeted benefit to domestic companies hurt by trade. The benefit is not paid to the companies, but to consultants, who help the company adjust to import competition. To put that in context, the very much larger TAA for Worker Program’s appropriation for FY 2015 was $711 million to retrain workers for jobs that may not exist after the company has closed.

Congress needs to find a cure to the trade problem, and it is not more trade cases, which do not save US companies and the jobs that go with them. TAA for Companies works, but because of politics, ideology and the resulting Congressional cuts, TAA has been so reduced it is now marginalized and cannot do the job it was set up to do.

Both Republicans and Democrats have failed to formulate a trade policy that will help US companies injured by imports truly adjust to import competition and become competitive in the World again. This failure has created Donald Trump and possibly a new dangerous protectionist era in US politics, which could have a disastrous impact on the US economy.

TPP TEXT AND TRADE ADVISORY REPORTS

On November 5, 2015, the United States Trade Representative Office (“USTR”) released the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (“TPP”). This is an enormous trade agreement covering 12 countries, including the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, and covers 40% of the World’s economy. To read more about the TPP and the political negotiations behind the Agreement see past newsletters and my blog, www.uschinatradewar.com.

The bill makes many changes to the Customs and Trade laws with a specific focus on enforcement, particularly of the Trade laws. One of the provisions focuses on concerns surrounding non-resident, small “fly-by-night” importers of record. The TFTE authorizes the Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to set up an importer-of-record program. Through the program, CBP must establish criteria that importers must meet to obtain an importer-of-record number.

In addition, CBP is to establish an importer risk assessment program to review the risk associated with certain importers, particularly new importers and nonresident importers, to determine whether to adjust an importer’s bond or increase screening for an importer’s entries. Specifically, Section 115(a) of the law provides:

Not later than the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall establish a program that directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to adjust bond amounts for importers, including new importers and nonresident importers, based on risk assessments of such importers conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in order to protect the revenue of the Federal Government.

Title IV of the Act, Prevention of Evasion of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, sets up a new remedy for companies that believe that antidumping and countervailing duty orders are being evaded by shipping through a third country or misclassification or some other means. The Act creates the Trade Remedy Enforcement Division within Department of Homeland Security, which is charged with developing and administering policies to prevent evasion of US antidumping and countervailing duty orders. The Secretary of Treasury is also authorized to enter into agreements with foreign nations to enforce the trade remedy laws.

On Aug. 23, 2016, CBP must begin investigating allegations of trade remedy evasion according to established procedures. Those procedures include that CBP must initiate an investigation within 15 business days of receiving an allegation from an interested party and then has 300 days to determine whether the merchandise was entered through evasion. If CBP finds that there is a reasonable suspicion that merchandise entered the U.S. through evasion, CBP is directed to suspend the liquidation of each unliquidated entry of such covered merchandise.

Any CBP evasion decision is subject to judicial review by the Court of International Trade. The act also provides an expanded range of penalties where evasion is found to have occurred, including the imposition of additional duties and referrals to other agencies for other civil or criminal investigations.

Section 433 of the Act also eliminates the ability of an importer of a new shipper’s merchandise to post a bond or security instead of a cash deposit. This provision will prevent a company from importing substantial quantities of merchandise covered by an antidumping and/or countervailing duty order and then fail to pay the appropriate duty.

Finally, section 701 of the act, Enhancement of Engagement on Currency Exchange Rate and Economic Policies with Certain Major Trading Partners of the United States, establishes a procedure for identifying trade partners that are suspected of currency manipulation and conducting a macroeconomic analysis of those partners. The key finding is under section 701(2)(B), where the Treasury Secretary is to publicly describe the factors used to assess under paragraph (2)(A)(ii) whether a country has a significant bilateral trade surplus with the United States, has a material current account surplus, and has engaged in persistent one-sided intervention in the foreign exchange market.

If the Treasury Secretary is unable to address currency manipulation issues with a trading partner, the act authorizes the President to take additional steps to prevent and remedy further manipulation. For instance, the president may prohibit the approval of new financing products, which can be waived only upon a finding of adverse impact on the U.S. economy or serious harm to national security.

ZTE EXPORT LAW VIOLATIONS—MORE FUEL ON THE FIRE OF THE US CHINA TRADE WAR

On March 8, 2015, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) published the attached Federal Register notice, ZTE FED REG NOTICE, announcing that China based mega corporation ZTE and three of its affiliated companies have been added to the Entity List, which requires an export license before US made products can be exported to those companies. As China’s second largest telecommunications company, ZTE is also the world’s seventh largest producer of smartphones and has operations in the US and more than 160 other countries.

The Federal Register notice states:

The End-User Review Committee (“ERC”) composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy, and, where appropriate, the Treasury has determined:

to add four entities—three in China and one in Iran—to the Entity List under the authority of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. . . .

The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to list these four entities. Under that paragraph, entities and other persons for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States . . . .

Pursuant to § 744.11 of the EAR, the ERC determined that Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation (‘‘ZTE Corporation’’) . . . be added to the Entity List under the destination of China for actions contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, the ZTE Corporation document ‘‘Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters’’ (available at http://www.bis.doc.gov) indicates that ZTE Corporation has reexported controlled items to sanctioned countries contrary to United States law. The ZTE Corporation document ‘‘Proposal for Import and Export Control Risk Avoidance’’ (available at http://www.bis.doc.gov) describes how ZTE Corporation also planned and organized a scheme to establish, control, and use a series of ‘‘detached’’ (i.e., shell) companies to illicitly re-export controlled items to Iran in violation of U.S. export control laws.

Having looked at the internal confidential ZTE report, which Commerce in a very unusual situation has published as a public document on its website, ZTE truly has been caught red handed. The ZTE Report lays out a detailed scheme to evade US Export Control laws. No country, including the United States or China, would tolerate such a scheme to systematically evade a country’s laws.

For more on the ZTE Action along with a link to the confidential ZTE document now posted on the Commerce Department website, see http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/03/08/2155724/has-the-cold-us-sino-trade-war-just-got-piping-hot/.

From the Chinese point of view, however, the Commerce Department has no credibility because its antidumping laws presently block about $30 billion in imports based on fake numbers. Because the US Government’s Import and Export Control Administration are both located in the Commerce Department, the Chinese government looks at all the Department’s decisions as US based protectionism.

The problem is that through its nonmarket economy methodology, which does not use actual costs and prices to determine dumping, Commerce has created a game, and the Chinese will play it. Sometimes Chinese companies talk to me about using the “houmen” back door and shipping products through different countries to evade US antidumping laws. I always tell the Chinese companies that this is Customs fraud and they risk civil and criminal prosecution under US Customs and trade laws.

In fact, in the past Chinese honey suppliers that used transshipment to get around the US antidumping law were caught in the United States and hauled in front of Federal Court on criminal charges for evasion of US antidumping laws. I have heard of one Chinese company seafood executive arrested in Belgium and sent to Belgian jail on an extradition warrant for evasion of US antidumping laws.

With the enactment of the New Trade and Customs Enforcement Act, described above, the US government now has more ways of catching Chinese companies and US importers that try to evade US trade laws. As one Chinese friend told me, such actions are “too damned dangerous”.

Although US judgments are not enforceable in China, Chinese companies have to also realize, that like ZTE, they have grown up and have subsidiaries all around the World. US judgments may not be enforceable in China, but they are enforceable in Hong Kong and other countries, and every Chinese company I have ever dealt with has a Hong Kong bank account. Through its scheme to evade US export control laws, ZTE now has major problems and those problems may now multiply worldwide.

CHINA’S NME STATUS—ANOTHER HOT TOPIC FOR 2016

As stated in prior newsletters, interest groups on both sides of the issue have increased their political attacks in the debate over China’s market economy status. On February 23, 2016, under intense pressure from the labor unions, Hilary Clinton stated that to give market economy status to China:

“would defang our anti-dumping laws and let cheap products flood into our markets. So we should reply with only one word: No.”

To summarize the issue, on December 11, 2016, pursuant to the WTO Agreement, the 15 year provision, expires. More specifically, the United States faces a looming deadline under the WTO Agreement with regard to the application of this nonmarket economy methodology to China.

Under Nonmarket economy methodology, Commerce does not use actual prices and costs in China to determine dumping, but constructs a cost from consumption factors in China multiplied by surrogate values from import statistics in 5 to 10 different countries and those values can change from preliminary to final determination and review to review. Because of this methodology no Chinese company and certainly no US importer that is liable for the duties, knows whether the Chinese company is truly dumping. Fake numbers lead to fake results.

Section 15 of the China WTO Accession Agreement, which originated from the US China WTO Accession Agreement, provides:

Price Comparability in Determining Subsidies and Dumping . . .

(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules: . . .

(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product. . . .

(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member’s national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non-market economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector.

In other words, pursuant to the China WTO Accession Agreement, Commerce’s right to use a nonmarket economy methodology “shall expire 15 years after the date of accession”. China acceded to the WTO on December 11, 2001 so Section 15(d) should kick in on December 11, 2016.

That provision specifies that an importing WTO member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices and costs in China to determine normal value in an AD case, if producers of a given product under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in their industry.

The question that is now being debated is whether Section 15(d) automatically ends the possibility of using a non-market economy methodology to China or if it can still be applied if petitioners can show that market conditions do not prevail for producers of the product under investigation.

As stated above, Hilary Clinton is under enormous pressure to be tough on China. On February 12th,The American Iron and Steel Industry made it clear that it wants China’s non-market economy status in antidumping cases to be at the forefront of the public debate. Thus Thomas Gibson, AISI president and CEO, stated:

“We want to keep the issue in front of decision makers and in the public debate because there will be a new government a year from now. “

He further stated that the Obama administration has not shown any sign that it is considering treating China as a market economy in AD cases as a result of an expiring provision in the country’s accession protocol to the World Trade Organization. As Gibson further stated:

“We have not heard anyone in the administration say that they agree with China’s assertion that it is to be given market economy status automatically at the end of the year. I think the administration has heard our concerns.”

Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Michael Punke also reportedly stated in early February in Geneva that there was little administration interest in treating China as a market economy:

“The issue of China’s status is not automatic. The mere change of date at the end of the year does not automatically result in a change of status for China.”

Other US government officials have informally conceded that the administration has arrived at the conclusion that no automatic change of U.S. AD methodology is needed, a position clearly articulated by the Commerce Department.

In the attached February 24, 2016 statement to the US China Economic and Security Review Commission, HUFBAUER STATE, however, Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a well-known international trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, made the opposite argument noting first that the following countries have granted China market economy status in antidumping cases: New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia and Australia. Hufbauer went on to state:

Some lawyers read the text differently. While they agree that Article 15(a)(ii) effectively disappears on December 11, 2016, they do not agree that the Protocol confines WTO members to a binary choice between MES (strict comparison of export prices with Chinese prices or costs) and NME (comparison with surrogate prices or costs). They point to the opening language in Article 15(a), which states:

…the importing WTO member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China….

To be sure, under Article 15(d), the whole of Article 15(a) disappears:

Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated….

The United States might well argue, come December 11, 2016, that China has not established that it has become, in all important respects, a market economy. The Commerce Department could modify its current surrogate practices and instead use a “mix-and-match” approach—claiming on a case-by-case basis that some Chinese prices or costs reflect market conditions and others do not. For the prices or costs that do not reflect market conditions, the Commerce Department could use surrogate prices or costs. This seems most likely in industries, such as steel, dominated by state-owned enterprises, with large losses financed by state-controlled banks.

Whether the United States takes a “mix-and-match” approach, rather than granting China blanket market economy status, will turn primarily on policy considerations, not legal parsing. The policy decision may reflect the general atmosphere of commercial relations with China late in 2016, including the evolution of the renminbi exchange rate (manipulated devaluation would inspire a harder line) and the outcome of US-China bilateral investment treaty (BIT) negotiations (success would have the opposite effect).

Assuming the United States adopts a “mix-and-match” approach, the stage will be set for China to initiate WTO litigation. In this scenario, the year 2018 seems the earliest date for a final decision by the WTO Appellate Body. My guess is that the Appellate Body would rule against the “mix-and-match” approach. Even so, China would not receive retroactive refunds for antidumping duties collected prior to the ruling.

Moreover, within China, the US denial of full-fledged MES would resonate strongly, in a negative way. Antagonism would be particularly strong if, as I expect, the European Union and other major countries accord MES in December 2016. Consequently, China would likely retaliate in opaque ways against US exporters and investors.

On balance, the United States would lose more than it gains from withholding full-fledged MES. A very large irritant would be thrown into US-China commercial relations, with a modest benefit to US industries that initiate AD proceedings. Even without the use of surrogate costs and prices, AD margins are typically high. Adding an extra 20 percent penalty, through the use of surrogate cost and price methodologies, will not do a great deal more to restrain injurious imports.

On February 25, 2016, Cecilia Malmström, the EU Commissioner for Trade, stated at a China Association Event in London that China is:

a major investment partner too. The EU has stocks of 117 billion pound sterling in the Chinese economy. And China is a growing source of foreign investment for the EU. Chinese investment in EU in 2014 is four times what it was in 2008.

And, if we just look at our exports alone, over 3 million jobs here in Europe depend on our sales in China. . . .

The second issue I want to raise is the question of changing the methodology in anti-dumping investigations concerning Chinese products, the so-called market economy status.

This is a sensitive issue. And it’s become even more so with the steel situation. That’s why the EU is conducting a thorough impact assessment and public consultation before we make up our minds on where to go.

But what is clear is that certain provisions of China’s protocol of accession to the WTO related to this issue will expire in December.

We need to be very careful how we approach this and we need to work cooperatively. We will need the constructive engagement of all Member States, including the UK.

On March 3, 2016, the executive council of the AFL-CIO labor union called on the US government to end the trade agreement TTIP negotiations if the EU makes China a market economy country.

TRADE

RAW ALUMINUM PROBLEMS

In light of the impact of the aluminum extrusions case on the US market, the import problem has now moved upstream. The next round of antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China looks like it will be on raw aluminum products.

On February 24, 2016, in a letter to the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”), WAYS MEANS LETTER ALUMINUM, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady requested that the Commission conduct a section 332 fact finding investigation of the US aluminum industry. The letter specifically states:

The Committee on Ways and Means is interested in obtaining current information on relevant factors affecting the global competitiveness of the U.S. aluminum industry. The U.S. aluminum industry remains a globally successful producer of aluminum products. A healthy and growing aluminum industry is not only important to our economy, but is also vital for our national defense. ·

In order to better assess the current market conditions confronting the U.S. industry, we request that the U.S. International Trade Commission conduct an investigation under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 ( 19 U.S.C. !332(g)), and provide a report setting forth the results of the investigation. The investigation should cover unwrought (e.g., primary and secondary) and wrought (e.g., semi-finished) aluminum products

To the extent that information is available, the report should contain:

an overview of the aluminum industry in the United States and other major global producing and exporting countries, including production, production capacity, capacity utilization, employment, wages, inventories, supply chains, domestic demand, and exports;

information on recent trade trends and developments in the global market for aluminum, including U.S. and other major foreign producer imports and exports, and trade flows through third countries for further processing and subsequent exports;

a comparison of the competitive strengths and weaknesses of aluminum production and exports in the United States and other major producing and exporting countries, including such factors as producer revenue and production costs, industry structure, input prices and availability, energy costs and sources, production technology, product in novation, exchange rates, and pricing, as well as government policies and programs that directly or indirectly affect aluminum production and exporting in these countries;

in countries where unwrought aluminum capacity has significantly increased, identify factors driving those capacity and related production changes; and

a qualitative and, to the extent possible, quantitative assessment of the impact of government policies and programs in major foreign aluminum producing and exporting countries on their aluminum production, exports, consumption, and domestic prices, as well as on the U.S. aluminum industry and on aluminum markets worldwide.

The report should focus primarily on the 2011-2015 time period, but examine longer term trends since 2011. To develop detailed information on the domestic aluminum market and industry, it is anticipated that the Commission will need to collect primary data from market participants through questionnaires. The Committee requests that the Commission transmit its report to Congress no later than 16 months following the receipt of this request. . . .

One major purpose of the investigation is to assess how China policies have affected the US aluminum industry.

President Heidi Brock of the US Aluminum Association, which represents the US aluminum industry, applauded the Ways and Means request for an ITC investigation:

“An investigation by the [ITC] will help us address ongoing issues in the global aluminum industry that are hurting the domestic market and leading to curtailments, closures and job losses. I am pleased that the Congress recognizes the continued economic importance of this vital industry and I applaud Chairman Brady’s leadership to move this issue forward.”

Recently, the U.S. industry has curtailed or closed 65 percent of U.S. aluminum capacity with many job losses for U.S. workers

The information collected by the ITC could be used as the basis for trade cases against China and other countries.

THE ONGOING STEEL CASES

Many companies have been asking me about the ongoing Steel antidumping and countervailing duty cases so this section will address the Steel cases in more detail.

As happened in the OCTG cases, where Chinese OCTG was simply replaced by imports from Korea, India, Taiwan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Thailand and Turkey, the same scenario is happening in other steel cases, such as the recent cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant/galvanized steel cases.

Based on the nonmarket economy antidumping methodology, which does not use actual prices and costs in China, in the recent cases Chinese steel companies were smashed with high antidumping rates of 200 to 300 percent. In the Cold Rolled Steel countervailing duty case, the Chinese companies and Chinese government simply gave up and received a rate over 200% and now under the Antidumping Law rates of over 200%.

On December 16, 2015, Commerce issued its attached preliminary countervailing duty determination, factsheet-multiple-cold-rolled-steel-flat-products-cvd-prelim-121615, in Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, China, India, and Russia and No Countervailable Subsidization of Imports of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Korea. The effect of the case is to wipe all Chinese cold rolled steel out of the United States with a countervailing duty (CVD) rate of 227.29%.

As also predicted, the countervailing duty rates for all the other countries were very low, if not nonexistent: Brazil 7.42% for all companies, India 4.45% for all companies, Korea 0 for all companies and Russia 0 to 6.33% for all companies.

The 227.29% CVD rate for all the Chinese companies was based on all facts available as the Chinese government and the Chinese steel companies simply refused to cooperate realizing that it was a futile exercise to fight the case at Commerce because of the surrogate value methodology and refusal to use actual prices and costs in China.

On March 1, 2016 Commerce issued its attached preliminary antidumping determination mirroring the rates in the preliminary CVD determination. Specifically, in a factsheet, factsheet-multiple-cold-rolled-steel-flat-products-ad-prelim-030116, Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary determinations in the antidumping duty investigations of imports of certain cold rolled steel flat products from Brazil, China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the United Kingdom.

As predicted, China’s antidumping rate was 265.79% as the Chinese companies simply gave up and did not participate because they believed that it would be impossible to get a good antidumping rate using nonmarket economy methodology.

For the other market economy countries, the results were mixed. Brazil received antidumping rates of 38.93% and Japan was 71.35%.

But India’s rate was only 6.78% and Korea had rates ranging from 2.17 to 6.85%. For Russia, the rates ranged from 12.62 to 16.89% and the United Kingdom rates were between 5.79 to 31.39%.

What does this mean? China is wiped out along with Japan and probably Brazil, but Korea, India, Russia and UK will continue to export steel to the US and simply take the Chinese market share.

Antidumping and countervailing duty cases do not save US industries.

CUSTOMS NEW “LIVE ENTRY” PROCEDURES FOR STEEL IMPORTS

On March 3, 2016, Customs announced a new effort to enforce trade rules against steel shipments at risk for evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders. It requires importers of record to provide the paperwork and pay the necessary duties before a given shipment is released into the U.S. market.

This live-entry requirement is already being applied to cut-to-length steel plate from China. Customs is considering requiring live-entry procedures for other high-risk steel imports subject to the 100 plus AD/CVD cases, but sidestepped a question on whether these procedures would apply to products other than steel.

This new live entry requirement slows up imports from entering the US commerce to that Customs can make sure everything in the shipment is correct before releasing it into the Commerce of the United States.

SOLAR CELLS REVIEW DETERMINATION

On December 18, 2015, in an attached decision, SOLAR CELLS AD PRELIM, the Commerce Department issued its preliminary determination in the 2013-2014 Solar Cells antidumping review investigation. The antidumping rates range from 4.53% for Trina to 11.47% for Yingli. The average dumping rate for the Chinese separate rate companies is 7.27%.

Meanwhile, requests for antidumping and countervailing duty review investigations in the Solar Cells case were due in December 2015 and in February 2016 for the Solar Products. While in China in February, I ran into many Chinese solar companies that were in serious trouble because they failed to request a review investigation.

MARCH ANTIDUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

On March 1, 2015, Commerce published the attached Federal Register notice, MARCH REVIEWS, regarding antidumping and countervailing duty cases for which reviews can be requested in the month of March. The specific antidumping cases against China are: Chloropicrin, Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe, Glycine, Sodium Hexametaphosphate, and Tissue Paper Products.

For those US import companies that imported : Chloropicrin, Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe, Glycine, Sodium Hexametaphosphate, or Tissue Paper Products during the antidumping period March 1, 2015-February28, 2016 or the countervailing duty period of review, calendar year 2015, the end of this month is a very important deadline. Requests have to be filed at the Commerce Department by the Chinese suppliers, the US importers and US industry by the end of this month to participate in the administrative review.

This is a very important month for US importers because administrative reviews determine how much US importers actually owe in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases. Generally, the US industry will request a review of all Chinese companies. If a Chinese company does not respond in the Commerce Department’s Administrative Review, its antidumping and countervailing duty rate could well go to the highest level and for certain imports the US importer will be retroactively liable for the difference plus interest.

In my experience, many US importers do not realize the significance of the administrative review investigations. They think the antidumping and countervailing duty case is over because the initial investigation is over. Many importers are blindsided because their Chinese supplier did not respond in the administrative review, and the US importers find themselves liable for millions of dollars in retroactive liability.

While in China in February, I found so many examples of Chinese solar companies or US importers, which did not file requests for a review investigation. In one instance, although the Chinese companies obtained separate rates during the initial investigation, the Petitioner appealed to the Court. Several Chinese companies and US importers did not know the case was appealed, and the importers now owe millions in antidumping duties because they failed to file a request for a review investigation in December.

CUSTOMS

RICO ACTION AGAINST CHINESE GARLIC EXPORTERS

In the attached complaint, GARLIC COMPLAINT, on January 28, 2016, Chinese garlic exporter Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co. Ltd. and its parent company sued a group of Chinese competitors in California federal court accusing them of deliberately defrauding the U.S. government in order to acquire preferential duty rates.

Zhengzhou Harmoni claimed the exporters, which the company says are affiliated to Chinese businessman Wenxuan Bai, are defrauding the system by lying and submitting falsified documents to Customs and Commerce in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The company said their competitors’ allegedly unlawful conduct is unfairly eroding Harmoni’s market share because Harmoni rightly earned favorable rates from the federal government through the antidumping review process,

Zhengzhou Harmoni told the court that its parent company and exclusive importer enjoys a similar advantage in the U.S. marketplace, but accused the Bai-affiliated garlic exporters of unlawfully forming new corporate entities and revitalizing old ones in order to obtain coveted “new shipper” designations to garner preferential treatment.

Meanwhile, in a decision, CIT PREMIER GARLIC, in late January Premier Trading, Inc. v. United States, Premier, a U.S. garlic importer of garlic from Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co. Ltd., one of the companies named in Harmoni’s RICO suit, sued Customs and Commerce in the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”). Premier Trading Inc. alleged CBP’s enhanced bond requirements for shipments from QTF are resulting in delays and leaving fresh garlic to spoil.

On February 11, 2016, Judge Gordon of the CIT denied Premier’s motion for a preliminary injunction, stating at the outset that there was no likelihood of success on the merits:

It is apparent that QTF may potentially be subject to the higher PRC-wide rate as a consequence of Commerce’s preliminary determination in the 20th administrative review. Furthermore, there has been a long and documented pattern of non-payment and underpayment of antidumping duties subject to the Garlic Order (amounting to several hundred million dollars). . . . Customs, here, has also provided confidential documents regarding Plaintiff’s connection to other importers that mirror a pattern of non-payment and underpayment, which suggests, as Customs claims, that Plaintiff poses a similar risk to the revenue. . . . In light of these facts, it is hard to see merit in Plaintiff’s claim that Customs failed to provide an adequate explanation for the enhanced bonding requirement for Plaintiff’s entries. Accordingly, Customs’ imposition of a heightened bonding requirement on imports from QTF does not appear arbitrary or capricious. . . . Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.

Judge Gordon then found that there was no irreparable injury and that the balance of equities favored the Government. Judge Gordon then stated that Public Interest lies in favor of the Government:

Here, the public has an interest in protecting the revenue of the United States and in assuring compliance with the trade laws. See 19 U.S.C. § 1623. Enhanced bonding pending litigation serves both these interests. Additional security covers potential liabilities and protects against default, ensuring the correct antidumping duty is paid.

CUSTOMS PROTEST RULE APPEALED TO SUPREME COURT

Meanwhile, International Custom Products Inc. has filed an attached writ of certiorari on January 19, SUPREME COURT CERT PROTEST ISSUE, and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of a Customs rule requiring the full payment of duties by an importer before a court case can proceed, challenging the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the policy meets due process requirements. The importer argues that the CPB rule requiring importers to fully pay imposed duties before bringing a court case is unconstitutional because it deprives the company of due process. The company has been disputing $28 million in tariffs it claims have been erroneously applied to its imports of white sauce due to the agency’s reclassification of the product.

FALSE CLAIMS ACT

GRAPHITE ELECTRODES

On February 22, 2016 in a settlement agreement, SETTLEMENT FCA GRAPHITE, Ameri-Source International Inc., a graphite electrodes company, paid $3 million to settle a false claims act case that it schemed to avoid antidumping duties on imports of graphite electrodes from China in violation of the False Claims Act. The complaint alleges that the importer misclassified the merchandise and lied about the country of origin to avoid paying anti-dumping duties on shipments of small-diameter graphite electrodes use for manufacturing.

Ameri-Source reportedly established a shell company in India to accept the imports of graphite rods from China for “jobwork,” and to re-export the materials to the U.S. to circumvent stateside customs regulations. The settlement resolves claims that Ameri-Source evaded anti-dumping duties on 15 shipments.

Specifically, Hailong admitted to participating in the theft of inbred – or parent – corn seeds from fields in the Southern District of Iowa for the purpose of transporting those seeds to China. The stolen inbred seeds constitute the valuable intellectual property of DuPont Pioneer and Monsanto.

During the conspiracy, Hailong was employed as director of international business of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Company, a Chinese conglomerate with a corn seed subsidiary company, Kings Nower Seed. Hailong is a Chinese national who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States pursuant to an H-1B visa.

Hailong is scheduled to be sentenced at a date to be determined later in Des Moines, Iowa. Conspiracy to steal trade secrets is a felony that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. As part of Hailong’s plea agreement, the government has agreed not to seek a prison sentence exceeding five years.

NEW PATENT AND TRADEMARK COMPLAINTS AGAINST CHINESE, HONG KONG AND TAIWAN COMPANIES

While in China last month working on various cases, I learned that the People’s Insurance Company (“PICC”) is offering Chinese companies products liability insurance. Every US importer should demand that his Chinese supplier obtain product’s liability insurance. Otherwise when something goes wrong, the US importer is on the hook for damages, not the Chinese company that created the problem.

On January 26, 2016, in the attached complaint, CHINA REFRIGERATOR, Allstate Insurance Company on behalf of Miguel Bejarno filed a products liability case against Electrolux Home Products Inc., Midea Group Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Refrigeration Co., Ltd. because a Chinese produced refrigerator blew up and burned down a house causing extensive damage.

LARGEST LACEY ACT FINE IN HISTORY AGAINST LUMBER LIQUIDATORS FOR CHINESE HARDWOOD IMPORTS

On February 1, 2016, the Justice Department in the attached statement, Lumber Liquidators Inc. Sentenced for Illegal Importation of Hardwood and Re, announced that Lumber Liquidators Inc. was sentenced for illegal Importation of hardwood from China and related environmental crimes and agreed to pay 13 million, one of the largest penalties ever issued under the Lacey Act. The announcement states:

Virginia-based hardwood flooring retailer Lumber Liquidators Inc. was sentenced today in federal court in Norfolk, Virginia, and will pay more than $13 million in criminal fines, community service and forfeited assets related to its illegal importation of hardwood flooring, much of which was manufactured in China from timber that had been illegally logged in far eastern Russia, in the habitat of the last remaining Siberian tigers and Amur leopards in the world . . . .

In total, the company will pay $13.15 million, including $7.8 million in criminal fines, $969,175 in criminal forfeiture and more than $1.23 million in community service payments. Lumber Liquidators has also agreed to a five-year term of organizational probation and mandatory implementation of a government-approved environmental compliance plan and independent audits. In addition, the company will pay more than $3.15 million in cash through a related civil forfeiture. The more than $13.15 million dollar penalty is the largest financial penalty for timber trafficking under the Lacey Act and one of the largest Lacey Act penalties ever.

Lumber Liquidators pleaded guilty and was charged in October 2015 in the Eastern District of Virginia with one felony count of importing goods through false statements and four misdemeanor violations of the Lacey Act, which makes it a crime to import timber that was taken in violation of the laws of a foreign country and to transport falsely-labeled timber across international borders into the United States. . . . This is the first felony conviction related to the import or use of illegal timber and the largest criminal fine ever under the Lacey Act.

“The case against Lumber Liquidators shows the true cost of turning a blind eye to the environmental laws that protect endangered wildlife,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden for the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “This company left a trail of corrupt transactions and habitat destruction. Now they will pay a price for this callous and careless pursuit of profit.” . . .

“By knowingly and illegally sourcing timber from vulnerable forests in Asia and other parts of the world, Lumber Liquidators made American consumers unwittingly complicit in the ongoing destruction of some of the world’s last remaining intact forests,” said Director Dan Ashe of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Along with hastening the extinction of the highly endangered Siberian tiger and many other native species, illegal logging driven by the company’s greed threatens the many people who depend on sustainable use of these forests for food, clean water, shelter and legitimate jobs. These unprecedented sanctions show how seriously we take illegal trade, and I am grateful to the Service special agents and wildlife inspectors, Homeland Security agents, and Justice Department attorneys who halted Lumber Liquidators’ criminal acts and held the company accountable under the law.”

According to a joint statement of facts filed with the court, from 2010 to 2013, Lumber Liquidators repeatedly failed to follow its own internal procedures and failed to take action on self-identified “red flags.” Those red flags included imports from high risk countries, imports of high risk species, imports from suppliers who were unable to provide documentation of legal harvest and imports from suppliers who provided false information about their products. Despite internal warnings of risk and noncompliance, very little changed at Lumber Liquidators.

ANTITRUST

There have been developments in the antitrust area.

CHINESE BAUXITE EXPORTERS WIN ANTITRUST CASE

On January 25, 2016, in the attached opinion in Resco Products, Inc. v. Bosai Minerals Group Co., Ltd. and CMP Tianjin Co., Ltd., BAUXITE OPINION, Chief District Judge Conti in the Western District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment for the Chinese companies and dismissed the antitrust case. Resco brought the claim individually and as a class representative, against Bosai and CMP alleging a conspiracy in China to fix the price and limit the supply of refractory grade bauxite in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

The Court concluded that any price floor or quota was set by the Chinese government’s Ministry of Commerce, not by the individual Chinese Bauxite companies. In its discussion of the facts, the Court stated:

In his declaration for the China Chamber of Commerce for Metals and Chemicals (“CCCMC”), Liu Jian (“Jian”), a CCCMC employee since 1995 and deputy director of the Bidding Office since 2006, . . . explained that “[a]t Bauxite Branch meetings, Bidding Office staff asked the Bauxite Branch members for their opinions about specific proposed quota amounts, quota bidding minimum prices, and other matters relating to quota bidding.” . . . but the authority and power to adopt quotas, and to establish the quota amount, minimum bidding price, and other terms, was always with MOFCOM, not the members or the CCCMC. MOFCOM could, and often did, set the quotas and minimum bidding prices at levels different than those favored by members. . . .

The Judge went on to state:

Here, plaintiff’s § 1 claim is based on its assertion that “[d]efendants and their co-conspirators colluded to fix export prices and quotas for bauxite from 2003 to 2009. . . .

In a per se case, “‘the plaintiff need only prove that the defendants conspired among each other and that this conspiracy was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.’” . . .

In a vacuum, proposals to set bauxite quotas at specified levels being voted on at Bauxite Branch meetings appear to indicate explicit member participation in a conspiracy to limit output. However, the Bauxite Branch’s demonstrated lack of authority with respect to quotas invalidates such a finding. Since at least 2001, MOFCOM has been “responsible for deciding and announcing the types and the total quota quantity of commodities subject to bidding,” not the CCCMC or its Branches. . . . The quota announced by the Bidding Committee during each of the years of the alleged conspiracy never corresponded to a resolution of the Bauxite Branch. At its 2004 through 2006 meetings, the Bauxite Branch failed to pass any resolution related to quota amount, yet the Bidding Committee, an instrumentality of MOFCOM, still announced quotas in each of those years. . . . Any conspiracy to establish a limit equal to or higher than that imposed by the government could have no effect.

Consistent with the undisputed Declaration of the CCCMC, Bauxite Branch member votes for proposals concerning the yearly bauxite quota amount can only be construed as opinions offered to MOFCOM. . . . These opinions were not that limits should be placed on bauxite output. The implementation of quotas was mandated by the Chinese government, not agreed to by private entities. . . .

Bauxite Branch members were asked for their opinions pertaining to the bauxite quota during meetings, “but the authority and power to adopt quotas, and to establish the quota amount, minimum bidding price, and other terms, was always with MOFCOM.” . . .

As discussed previously, the evidence adduced with respect to the quotas cannot support a § 1 claim, because the Chinese government – and not defendants – set the quotas.

Resco has appealed the District’s Court’s determination to the Court of Appeals.

CHINESE COMPANIES SETTLE SOLYNDRA SOLAR CASE

On February 26, 2016, in the attached settlement agreement, SOLYNDRA SETTLEMENT, Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Ltd. agreed to settle for $7.5 million a US antitrust case alleging that Chinese companies conspired to set prices with the objective of destroying Solyndra.

Solyndra previously settled the litigation against two other Chinese companies, Trina Solar Ltd. and Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd, for a total of $51 million, with Trina Solar paying $45 million and Suntech paying $6 million.

On February 29, 2016, it was reported that many U.S.-listed Chinese companies are leaving the United States and moving back to China as the easing of Chinese securities regulations has renewed the possibility of finding stronger valuations domestically.

Although there has been market volatility in China, US too has had volatility. Apparently, there is a perception that a stronger valuation can be found in Chinese domestic stock markets, where investors have a stronger understanding of the companies and the role they play. In November, the China Securities Regulatory Commission began greenlighting IPO-bound companies and promised to take measures to help reform the country’s system for initial public offerings.

FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

In February Dorsey& Whitney LLP issued its January February 2016 Anti-Corruption Digest, TIANJIN INVESTMENT COMPANY. The Digest states with regards to China:

China

Wang Qishan, the Secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection has given assurances that China’s anti-corruption efforts will continue in 2016. In a recent speech, Mr. Wang stressed that, “the strength of our anti-corruption efforts will not be lessened”.

This sentiment was echoed by the recent sentencing of two former officials:

According to state media, Li Dongsheng, China’s former deputy national police chief, has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for corruption. Reports state that Mr. Li stood accused of taking bribes totally ¥22 million ($3.3 million/£2.3 million) and abusing his power. It is said that Mr. Li will not appeal the verdict.

A former top official in the city of Guangzhou has reportedly admitted to taking ¥111 million ($17 million/£11.5 million) in bribes between 2000 and 2014. Wan Qingliang’s alleged corruption is said to have included taking bribes of more than ¥50 million ($7.6 million/£5.2 million) from a company that he had helped to win a government development project.

In a written statement the Nanning Intermediate People’s Court said that Mr. Wan raised no objection to the charge of corruption and that he showed remorse during the trial. It is said that Mr. Wan told the court that, “I have hurt the Party, the people and my family and I hope that the court can give me another chance.”

Recently, Dorsey& Whitney LLP issued its attached February 2016 Anti-Corruption Digest, Anti_Corruption_Digest_Feb2016. The Digest states with regards to China:

China

China’s army has not been immune from President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption drive and has seen a number of its officers investigated, including two former vice chairmen of the Central Military Commission.

To continue this drive, it has been reported that the military’s anti-corruption discipline inspection committee has established a hotline as a means for reports to be made regarding allegations of corruption in the People’s Liberation Army. It is said that the hotline will “fully utilize supervision by the masses” and complaints will be addressed in a “timely and earnest” fashion.

SECURITIES COMPLAINTS.

On March 8, 2016 Jacob Sheiner filed the attached class action securities complaint, TIANJIN INVESTMENT COMPANY, against a number of individuals and also Tianjin Tianhai Investment Co., Ltd. as well as GCL Acquisition, Inc.

If you have any questions about these cases or about the US trade policy, trade adjustment assistance, customs, 337, IP/patent, products liability, US/China antitrust or securities law in general, please feel free to contact me.

This January newsletter will cover trade policy, trade, general litigation, 337/patents, antitrust and securities .

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRADE POLICY

TPP RUNS INTO HEADWINDS

As predicted in past blog posts, on December 28, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the US Election Debate was complicating the passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) in Congress. The Wall Street Journal specifically stated:

The trade agreement is expected to lead to some job losses and boost competition for some companies—including labor-intensive manufacturers and Detroit auto makers.

Still, many economists say it would generate overall gains to U.S. gross domestic product and increase incomes for many Americans in ways that improve the overall economy.

The TPP’s potential to create vocal middle-class losers makes the agreement harder to pass in an election year, since the winners, even if more numerous, are likely to be less motivated.

GOP lawmakers and officials, backed by big businesses, have more reliably supported trade agreements than Democrats, who tend to be closer to the labor movement. Among the broad electorate, blue-collar workers of both parties are skeptical of freer trade.

Recently Republican voters have emerged as bigger opponents, a shift not lost on the tea-party movement and Mr. Trump. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 56% of Democrats said free trade is good for America, compared with 48% of Republicans.

Trade experts say Mr. Trump’s policies would make him, if elected, the biggest fan of tariffs since the late 19th century presidency of William McKinley. . . .

For Mr. Cruz or another GOP president, White House policy on trade would likely depend on whether the party is controlled by the pro-business wing that has dominated the party since World War II or shifts toward protectionist ideas espoused by Mr. Trump.

Meanwhile on December 10, 2015, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that there would be no vote on the TPP until after the election. McConnell indicated that he was undecided on the vote, but he was sure that the TPP would be defeated if it were sent to Capitol Hill next spring or summer. McConnell further stated:

“It certainly shouldn’t come before the election. I don’t think so, and I have some serious problems with what I think it is. But I think the President would be making a big mistake to try to have that voted on during the election. There’s significant pushback all over the place.

Yeah, I think it would be a big mistake to send it up before the election.

The next president, whoever that is, will have the authority to either revisit this one, if it doesn’t pass, or finish the European deal or other deals, and give Congress a chance to weigh in on it,”

McConnell who opposes the tobacco provisions in the TPP, has joined with Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), the Senate Finance Committee chairman, who was also a key supporter of the fast-track legislation, but has raised particular concerns about provisions related to pharmaceutical companies. Utah has a growing pharmaceutical industry.

McConnell’s and Hatch’s concerns have reduced the enthusiasm among the Republicans as the debate over trade policies on the 2016 campaign trail has become entangled in Presidential politics. Several top contenders for the GOP presidential nomination, including Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), have denounced the pact, and all of the Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Saunders, oppose it.

On January 7, 2016, however, the White House pushed for a TPP vote sooner rather than later, arguing for a quick vote warning that a delay of the vote to the lame-duck session of Congress or into the next administration would be a significant lost opportunity. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a press briefing that Congress should act quickly to ratify the plan amid recent turbulence in the China stock market, which some media reports have said is in its worst shape since the global financial crisis. He further stated that the best way for the U.S. economy to weather volatility in international markets is through the TPP:

“I’m not suggesting that Congress should fast-forward through that process and vote today. But I am suggesting that we should move expeditiously through this process and that Congress should not wait until the end of the year or even next year to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.”

One point in favor of TPP is that on January 4, 2016 the National Association of Manufacturers announced that they were in support of the TPP. NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons stated:

“After careful analysis, the NAM will support the TPP as it will open markets and put manufacturers in a much stronger position to compete in an important and growing region of the world.

We recognize this agreement is not perfect, and there are some principled objections to the TPP, so the NAM will continue to work closely with its members to address remaining barriers.

Importantly, we encourage the administration to work closely with the industry, Congressional leaders and the other TPP governments to address these key issues.”

Subsequently, a coalition of top U.S. CEOs from the Business Roundtable gave the TPP a firm endorsement, but urged the Obama administration to quickly alter portions of the deal that are not up to par. As the Business Round Table International Engagement Committee stated:

“We want Congress to approve the TPP this year. To that end, we are urging the administration to quickly address the remaining issues that impact certain business sectors in order to ensure the broadest possible benefits to all sectors of U.S. business, which will enable the broadest support possible for the TPP.”

But in addition to tobacco and pharmaceutical problems in the TPP, another issue is banking and data flows. On January 12, 2016, in a letter to three Cabinet Secretaries, a bipartisan group of 63 Congressional representatives urged the Obama administration officials to correct the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s exclusion of financial services from the agreement’s e-commerce chapter, warning that the current text of the deal leaves banks exposed to risky data storage rules. The letter stated:

“Omission of these disciplines in the TPP is a missed opportunity to ensure that all U.S. companies benefit from strong rules prohibiting localization requirements. We note that such disciplines can be included in trade agreements while maintaining the ability of U.S. regulators to protect consumers through prudential regulation.”

The TPP’s e-commerce chapter contains a general ban on the localization of data through the establishment of expensive in-country servers. But the lawmakers argued that the banking, insurance and securities industries are not different from other sectors that depend on the unimpeded flow of data to keep their businesses running in the World marketplace. The letter further states:

“These types of requirements not only impair the competitiveness of U.S. companies but also reduce overall data security and create inefficiencies. We request that your agencies use all available measures to address the existing gaps in the TPP. In addition, going forward, we request that there be a single approach that prohibits localization requirements in future trade and investment agreements.”

On November 5, 2015, the United States Trade Representative Office (“USTR”) released the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (“TPP”). This is an enormous trade agreement covering 12 countries, including the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, and covers 40% of the World’s economy. To read more about the TPP and the political negotiations behind the Agreement see past blog posts.

On December 9, 2015, in the attached announcement, Trade-and-Environment-Policy-Advisory-Committee.pdf, Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member, Ron Wyden, announced a final agreement on the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.

Interest groups on both sides of the issue have increased their political attacks in the debate over China’s market economy status. On December 11, 2016, pursuant to the WTO Agreement, the 15 year provision, expires.

More specifically, the United States faces a looming deadline under the WTO Agreement with regard to the application of this nonmarket economy methodology to China. Section 15 of the China WTO Accession Agreement, which originated from the US China WTO Accession Agreement, provides:

Price Comparability in Determining Subsidies and Dumping . . .

(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules: . . .

(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product. . . .

(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member’s national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non-market economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector.

In other words, pursuant to the China WTO Accession Agreement, Commerce’s right to us a nonmarket economy methodology “shall expire 15 years after the date of accession”. China acceded to the WTO on December 11, 2001 so Section 15(d) should kick in on December 11, 2016.

That provision specifies that an importing WTO member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices and costs in China to determine normal value in an AD case, if producers of a given product under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in their industry.

The question that is now being debated is whether Section 15(d) automatically ends the possibility of using a non-market economy methodology to China or if it can still be applied if petitioners can show that market conditions do not prevail for producers of the product under investigation.

In November 2015 European Union Industry Commissioner Elzbieta Bienkowska told the European Parliament that geopolitical considerations must be weighed against the industrial interests of the EU in the evaluation of extending market economy status (NME) to China.

On October 30, 2015, it was reported that during a visit to China, German Chancellor Angela Merkel backs more ‘market economy status’ for China – with certain conditions. More specifically, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated:

“Germany supports, in general, China’s claim to get the market economy status. At the same time China has to do some homework, for example in the area of public procurement. But we want to advance the process – as we want to do that with the EU-China investment agreement.”

Under the NME methodology, administering authorities in countries administering antidumping laws, such as the US Commerce Department, do not use actual costs and prices in China to determine antidumping rates. Instead the administering authorities use values in various surrogate countries, which in the Commerce Department’s case, can change between preliminary and final determinations and various review investigations to determine the foreign value. As a result, neither the Commerce Department nor other foreign countries can know whether China is truly dumping.

The European Union Industry commission is seen as strongly favoring a change to market economy status for China, but the European parliament has not taken such a strong stand.

In the U.S., the Commerce Department has taken the position that it will not automatically bestow market economy status on China, but will consider if it meets the statutory criteria for doing so in the context of a specific case if it receives a properly filed petition.

Other countries that are not likely to bestow automatic market economy status to China at the end of 2016 are Japan, Canada, Brazil and India.

On Dec. 30, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang made clear that China is pushing for the granting of market economy status, stating:

“We hope that the EU can set a good example in obeying the WTO rules and take substantive actions to meet its obligations under Article 15 of the Protocol, which will also facilitate the development of China-EU economic and trade ties.”

Steel industries and unions in both the US and EU are fighting hard against giving China market economy status. As indicated below, steel experts have been pointing to the large overcapacity of the Chinese steel industry. But with almost all Chinese steel blocked from entry into the US by large antidumping and countervailing duties, it is questionable how much weight such arguments will be given.

The only two major Chinese steel products still coming into the US are galvanized and cold-rolled steel, and based on surrogate values, Commerce just issued very high antidumping and countervailing duty rates against both products, wiping them out of the US market. Currently, if not all, almost all, steel products from China are covered by an AD order and often also a CVD order, including carbon steel plate, hot rolled carbon steel flat products, circular welded carbon quality steel pipe, light walled rectangular pipe and tube, circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe, circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe, steel threaded rod, oil country tubular goods, prestressed concrete steel wire strand, seamless carbon and alloy steel standard line and pressure pipe, high pressure steel cylinders, prestreessed concrete steel rail tire wire, non-oriented electrical steel, and carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod.

On Dec. 22, the United Steelworkers (“USW”) union, according to a USW press release, held a private meeting in Minnesota with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, as well as Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Al Franken (D-MN), at which they discussed the “urgency of federal, state and local government authorities to provide more immediate relief against the global onslaught of steel imports that have shut down half of the region’s steel sector mining jobs,” Emil Ramirez, director for USW District 11 — which covers Midwestern states including Minnesota, Missouri and Montana — said at the meeting that the union is “at war with China’s illegal steel imports flooding into our market.” He added that China had in some months in 2015 dumped more than 100,000 tons of cold-rolled steel into the U.S. market, contributing to mining job losses in Northern Minnesota’s so-called “Iron Range” A day later, the union welcomed what it called a “whopping” 255.8% preliminary AD rate on Chinese corrosion-resistant steel based on surrogate values, despite the fact that all the other antidumping rates against other countries based on actual prices and costs were in the single digits or 0s.

On October 26, 2015, Leo Gerard, who heads the Steel Union, sent the following attached letter,USW CHINA NME , to USTR Michael Froman about steel imports and China’s market economy status:

Dear Ambassador Froman:

I am writing to you regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the potential for U.S manufacturing interests to be adversely affected by how the European Union (EU) may change its current treatment of the People’s Republic of China (China) as a non-market economy.

As you well know, under the terms of China’s Protocol of Access to the World Trade Organization, other WTO members had the right to treat the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) for purposes of antidumping and countervailing duty laws. One clause regarding the treatment of China expires on December 11, 2016, but the remaining language continues to operate. This has led to an active effort by China to end its treatment as a non-market economy by those countries which continue to treat it as such so as to gain preferential treatment. The media has suggested that while the EU has not decided how it will proceed, an internal EU memo argues for granting market economy treatment. This memo is not yet public. How China is treated under U.S. and EU antidumping laws is critical to workers and companies in both countries. With massive distortions in most aspects of the Chinese economy, changing China’s status before their economy in fact operates on market principles on a sustained and verifiable basis will have far reaching consequences for workers, companies and communities across the U.S. and the EU. If the EU makes a change in treatment of China under its antidumping law when China has not in fact truly engaged in comprehensive reform of its economy, there will be broad repercussions for how fair market conditions will be assessed in Europe and, in terms of U.S. exports to the EU, could result in dramatically lower opportunities for the export of America’s manufactured products.

As noted, press reports indicate that the EU is considering granting China market economy status in the near future, despite overwhelming evidence of the continued state-led direction, intervention, subsidization and control of that country’s economy and its firms. If the EU chooses to grant China this preferential status, either for the country as a whole or for individual sectors or firms, it will subject U.S. products to a potential risk of having to compete against unfairly traded products in the EU and, potentially, as components in products shipped to the U.S. or to third country markets. Thus, the EU’s decisions in this area must be addressed as part of the ongoing TTIP negotiations and that any alterations in their treatment of China as a NME be subject to dispute resolution and potential compensation for any adverse effects it may have on the U.S., producers and workers

The TPP negotiations have overshadowed the TTIP negotiations and, as a result, many important issues are receiving limited attention. The EU’s potential actions in this area must not be viewed simply as a matter for the EU Commission to consider but, rather, must be addressed in terms of their potential impact on the U.S. manufacturing sector and its employees.

I look forward to working with you on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Leo W. Gerard

International President

CHINA CURRENCY APPROVED BY THE INTERENATIONAL MONETARY FUND AS A MAIN WORLD CURRENCY

In the past, one of the arguments that Commerce has used to deny China market economy status is that the Chinese yuan/RMB is not convertible. On November 30, 2015, however, in the attached announcement, IMF PRESS RELEASE, the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) announced that the Chinese renminbi will become the fifth currency to be included in the organization’s international reserve asset that supplements member countries’ official reserves.

As the IMF stated the renminbi, or RMB, will join the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound on Oct. 1, 2016, in a basket of currencies known as the Special Drawing Right, which plays a critical role in providing liquidity to the global economic system, especially during financial crises, the IMF said.

IMF managing director Christine Lagarde stated that the executive board’s decision is “an important milestone” recognizing China’s integration in the international financial system:

“It is also a recognition of the progress that the Chinese authorities have made in the past years in reforming China’s monetary and financial systems. The continuation and deepening of these efforts will bring about a more robust international monetary and financial system, which in turn will support the growth and stability of China and the global economy.”

Lagarde’s decision was based on a paper prepared by IMF staff, which determined that the RMB is a “freely usable” currency.

The IMF. designation, an accounting unit known as the special drawing rights, bestows global importance. Many central banks follow this benchmark in building their reserves, which countries hold to help protect their economies in times of trouble. By adding the renminbi to this group, the IMF effectively considers a currency to be safe and reliable.

EXIM BANK RISES FROM THE DEAD BUT THEN RUNS INTO A NEW ROADBLOCK

Congress let the Export-Import (“EXIM”) Bank’s lending authority expire after June 30, but a number of Republicans in the House of Representatives, including Congressman Dave Reichert, currently Chairman Subcommittee on Trade, House Ways and Means, joined Democrats to force a vote in October to resurrect the Bank. The House attached Ex-Im to a highway funding bill and stopped ten amendments that would have limited the bank’s scope. This highway/Ex-Im bill passed the House 363 to 64. In December negotiators from both chambers of Congress reached an agreement that revived the bank’s lending authority through Sept. 30, 2019.

On December 3, 2015, the Senate passed the Transportation Bill with the Reauthorization of the EX-IM Bank, and on December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the bill into law.

The arguments for the EX-IM Bank are many, as Steve Myrow, who used to work at the EXIM Bank, stated in an Article in The Hill on July 9, 2014:

The debate over reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank has become the latest proxy battle between the conservative and establishment wings of the Republican Party. However, this issue should not be used as an ideological litmus test. Instead, it should evoke a practical and constructive dialogue about how best to level the playing field for American businesses overseas while protecting taxpayers here at home.

Founded in 1934, the Export-Import Bank’s mission has not changed throughout its 80-year history. Its raison d’être has always been to create jobs at home by financing the sale of American goods and services abroad. Ex-Im Bank does not compete with private-sector lenders, but rather seeks to match the foreign government support that U.S. firms’ foreign competitors enjoy.

When I served in the bank’s leadership in President George W. Bush’s administration, our overarching goal was to steer the bank between two beacons — one focused on creating jobs and the other on protecting the taxpayers.

We believed, as did members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, that an ideal way to navigate these two beacons was to convert the bank into one of the only truly self-sustaining government agencies.

By making the bank stand on its own two feet and rely solely on its revenue stream to fund its operations, we not only made it possible for companies to grow high-quality domestic jobs, but we earned a profit for the taxpayers.

Few government agencies can claim to have reduced the deficit, a fact that should be especially welcome during the current era of austerity.

Nevertheless, some of the bank’s Congressional detractors argue that it distorts the market by providing a subsidy. It’s true that in a perfect market, subsidies should not exist. But unfortunately, the real world is not a perfect market. Most countries that meaningfully benefit from international trade provide varying degrees of export subsidies.

Some identify specific firms as their national champions and others, like China, even provide financing on terms more akin to development assistance.

To put it another way, should the U.S. unilaterally disarm just because atomic weapons are undesirable? Of course not. We need a nuclear arsenal because other countries have them. The same is true for maintaining an export credit agency. Ex-Im Bank’s role is to ensure that U.S. exporters get a fair chance to compete based on quality, price and service, rather than on the basis of financing assistance.

But despite the many arguments in favor of the EXIM bank and the passage of the reauthorization, EXIM is not out of the woods yet. Senator Shelby, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has held up nominations for the EXIM bank Board of Directors. Because there is no quorum, the failure to appoint a new director means that no large projects, such as the sale of Boeing airplanes or sales of GE products, can be approved.

EXIM’s board of directors has only two of the five members it is supposed to have, including Chairman Fred Hochberg. That means it cannot approve loans above $10 million, which make up about a third, value-wise, of EXIM’s transactions.

More specifically, Democrats have sought consent for the nomination of Patricia Loui-Schmicker to the EXIM Bank board of directors, despite the fact that the White House sought a second term for her in March 2015. Loui-Schmicker is needed to give the Ex-Im bank five-member board a quorum. The panel reviews Ex-Im Bank loans above $10 million.

On January 11th, President Obama withdrew the nomination of Democrat Loui-Schmicker and nominated John Mark Mcwatters, a former staffer to House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling, to fill one of the vacant Republican seats on the Export-Import Bank’s board of directors. McWatters’ former boss, Hensarling, chairman of the House’s Financial Services Committee, has led efforts to shut down the Export-Import Bank.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, who opposed Ex-Im’s reauthorization last year, however, has expressed little interest in acting on any nominees to fill its board openings. On January 11, 2016, Senator Shelby indicated that clearing the panel’s backlog of nominees might not see much progress before his March 1 primary in Alabama, stating, “I’m in the primary now. That’s what’s going to eat a lot of my time up – always does.”

When asked about the McWatters nomination, to fill one of the vacant Republican seats on the Export-Import Bank’s board of directors, Shelby stated, “I’m in a primary right now. We’re in no hurry to hold hearings.”

On November 20, 2015, the Commerce Department issued the attached final determination in the 2013-2014 antidumping review investigation of aluminum extrusions from China, ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS FINAL. Based on surrogate values, Commerce issued antidumping rates of 86.01%, but for companies that did not cooperate, Commerce issued antidumping rates of only 33.28%.

Meanwhile, US producers are growing concerned over a large stockpile of aluminum extrusions at a casting facility in Mexico. Aluminicaste Fundición de México S. de RL de CV, a producer of secondary billet, slab and forging billet, is storing around 850,000 tonnes of aluminum extrusions at its San José Iturbide, Mexico, facility.

It was reported that the extrusions had been shipped directly from extrusion plants in China and were being remelted into billet at the Mexico facility. The source told the American Metals Market:

“Yes, it’s about 850,000 (tonnes) on the ground. The quality of the metal is very good. It’s coming from billets that are extruded in China, shipped to Mexico, and made back into billet. They are currently casting at full capacity, which is about 100,000 (tonnes) per year.”

“It’s a lot of metal. Even me, I have not seen that much metal before. It was 300,000 (tonnes) about a year ago and quickly grew to 850,000 (tonnes).”

The practice of importing extrusions from China and remelting them into billet is not illegal or known to violate any law.

NEW TRADE CASES COMING—RAW ALUMINUM

In light of the impact of the aluminum extrusions case on the US market, the import problem has now moved upstream. The next round of antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China looks like it will be on raw aluminum products.

As indicated in the attached letter, NEW ALUMINUM CASES COMING, on November 24, 2015, the US Aluminum Association and the Canadian Aluminum Producers complained about Chinese aluminum production and the subsidies they receive:

Dear Secretary Kerry and Minister McKenna,

We write to you representing aluminum producers in the United States and Canada. We are concerned about China’s state-planned and carbon intensive aluminum industry which has amassed considerable overproduction. This not only leads to a distortion of international trade impacting our entire value chain, but also undermines global efforts to decarbonize the economy. . . .

Only ten years ago China supplied 24% of the world’s primary aluminum. Today, spurred by energy subsidies, Chinese manufacturers have more than doubled their output and supply 52% of all primary aluminum produced globally. At the same time, this massive increase in production entails a significant environmental consequence.

Aluminum production in China is the most carbon intensive in the world, with its coal-based smelters emitting significantly more greenhouse gases per ton of aluminum than its North American counterparts. In fact, a ton of aluminum produced in China is at least twice as carbon-intensive as that same metal produced in North America. Given the rapid expansion of high-carbon aluminum production in China, many of the efficiency and emission reduction gains made by the global aluminum industry over the last several decades are being offset. . . .

The U.S. and Canadian aluminum industry is concerned that overproduction in China will continue unabated and is insufficiently regulated. These commitments represent a critical opportunity for China to advance energy efficiency and emissions reductions targets in support of global commitments to address climate change.

We appreciate your support to help us to reestablish fair trade conditions and to make a significant contribution to advancing a low-carbon global economy. . . .

Letters, like this, are usually a sign that an antidumping/countervailing duty case is coming. In addition, US aluminum producers have launched a new China Trade Task Force with their target being “illegal” Chinese government subsidies. In a letter to USTR Michael Froman, the US producers asked USTR to intervene on behalf of an industry that supports thousands of jobs: